Media

Digital platforms including Facebook and Google will now have to pay Australian news publishers, under a new law, the world’s first, passed by Australia on Feb. 25.   Under the News Media Bargaining Code, tech firms are obligated to pay news companies if they have an annual income exceeding AU$150,000 (HK$905,585), a move seen to mostly benefit Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns most of Australia’s major newspapers.   If tech companies do not pay, then they will be fined  AU$10 million (HK$60.1 million) or 10% of the annual turnover of the digital platform.  The code also allows news companies to negotiate payments with tech firms over the next three months. If they do not reach an agreement by that time, arbitrators from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, a government statutory body, would make the final decision on the payment. "For every $100 of online advertising spend, $53 goes to Google, $28 goes to Facebook, and $19 goes to other participants," said Josh Frydenberg, the Treasurer of the Australian government at a press conference.  Facebook suspended hundreds of pages from Australian news outlets, personal blogs and government departments on Feb. 18 following the amendment proposal.  The social media giant said in a statement in August last year that it will stop people from sharing local and international news if the law is passed.  “Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram,” the statement said.  The platform also said in a statement that the code “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship” between its platform and publishers who use it to share news.   Facebook accepted the code after last-minute changes to the bill, which included a three-month negotiation period with an additional two months for mediation between …

Media tycoon Jimmy Lai will remain in prison custody after the Court of Final Appeal ruled on Tuesday to uphold the government’s challenge to a lower court’s decision to grant him bail. Today’s hearing was a test in determining whether judges can grant bail in cases involving the national security law. Jimmy Lai is facing charges of fraud, breaching the national security law, and colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security. The Court of Final Appeal said today that  High Court judge, Alex Lee had misinterpreted the nature of the threshold requirement under the national security law.  It was referring to a “double negative” clause which states that “No bail unless the judge has sufficient grounds to believe the accused will not commit acts endangering national security before considering the grant of bail”.  While granting bail to Jimmy Lai back in December, judge Alex Lee asked prosecutors to prove that the defendant would pose a further threat to national security in order to deny him bail. But the Court of Final Appeal said today that Judge Lee could have considered whether to grant bail with the intent to prevent Jimmy Lai from endangering national security. “The judge from the High Court applied this erroneous line of reasoning and his approach was clearly inconsistent with the Court’s analysis in this judgment and could not be supported,” today’s judgement stated. Jimmy Lai was granted a HK$10 million bail in late December. He was ordered to remain in his home, and was prohibited from posting on social media or issuing statements. The government filed an appeal against the bail shortly after and Jimmy Lai was put back behind bars a week later. According to the National Security Law Article 42, the accused has to provide reasoning to request bail, unlike in constitutional …

On Jan. 25, Frederik Obermaier, one of the two Süddeutsche Zeitung journalists who initiated and coordinated the biggest data leak in history, the Panama Papers, spoke to a class of journalism students at Hong Kong Baptist University about the entire publishing process. Mr Obermaier introduced how he worked with his colleague Bastian Obermeyer, from the first John Doe text messages that started it, all the way to publishing, and the aftermath of the Panama Papers. Mr Obermaier started the presentation by describing their first contact withJohn Doe, the whistleblower that claimed to possess insider data on the activities of a well-known Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca dating back to the 1970s.  “Hello. This is John Doe. Interested in data? I’m happy to share,” Mr Obermaier read the first anonymous messages his colleague received.  Mr Obermaier explained that these messages were not uncommon in their office. Thus, they started to investigate if any of the data was legit and trustworthy.  Upon receiving all of the data, it amounted to 2.6TB of data, the largest in history blowing all its predecessors out of the water.  “If we were to open all the files by ourselves, it would take a minimum of 10 years, not to mention read through them,” Mr Obermaier said. He added “that securing the data was the first challenge they face.” In order to safeguard the precious data, Süddeutsche Zeitung purchased a €17,000 (HK$159,000) air gapped computer placed in a lockbox chained to the floor. Glitter nail polish was layered on top of the computer screws to ensure that it had not tampered with.  Communication with John Doe was also encrypted that there was no way of knowing his or her identity. However, as Mr Obermaier explained, the biggest task still remained, publishing this story as quickly and clearly …