Disney+, the streaming service from the Walt Disney Company, has been rapidly ramping up in the last several weeks. But while some of that expansion has seen some hiccups, other regions are basically on track. Today, as expected, Disney announced that it is officially launching across 7 markets in Europe — but doing so using reduced bandwidth given the strain on broadband networks as more people are staying home because of the coronavirus pandemic. From today, it will be live in the U.K., Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria and Switzerland; Disney also reconfirmed the delayed debut in France will be coming online on April 7. It’s the largest multi-country launch so far for the service.
“Launching in seven markets simultaneously marks a new milestone for Disney+,“ said Kevin Mayer, Chairman of Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International, in a statement. “As the streaming home for Disney, Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, and National Geographic, Disney+ delivers high-quality, optimistic storytelling that fans expect from our brands, now available broadly, conveniently, and permanently on Disney+. We humbly hope that this service can bring some much-needed moments of respite for families during these difficult times.”
Pricing is £5.99/€6.99 per month or £59.99/€69.99 for an annual subscription. Belgium, the Nordics, and Portugal, will follow in summer 2020.
The service being rolled out will feature 26 Disney+ Originals plus an “extensive collection” of titles (some 500 films, 26 exclusive original movies and series and thousands of TV episodes to start with) from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic, and other content producers owned by the entertainment giant, in what has been one of the boldest moves yet from a content company to go head-to-head with OTT streaming services like Netflix, Amazon and Apple.
The expansion of Disney+ has been caught in the crossfire of world events.
The new service is launching at what has become an unprecedented time for streaming media. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, a lot of of the world is being told to stay home, and many people are turning to their televisions and other screens for diversion and information.
That means huge demand for new services to entertain or distract people who are now sheltering in place. And that has put a huge strain on broadband networks. So, to be a responsible streamer (and to make sure quality is not too impacted), Disney confirmed (as it previously said it would) that it would be launching the service with “lower overall bandwidth utilization by at least 25%.”
There are now dozens of places to get an online video fix, but Disney has a lot of valuable cards in its hand, specifically in the form of a gigantic catalog of famous, premium content, and the facilities to produce significantly more at scale, dwarfing the efforts (valiant or great as they are) from the likes of Netflix, Amazon and Apple .
Titles in the mix debuting today include “The Mandalorian” live-action Star Wars series; a live-action “Lady and the Tramp,” “High School Musical: The Musical: The Series,”; “The World According to Jeff Goldblum” docuseries from National Geographic; “Marvel’s Hero Project,” which celebrates extraordinary kids making a difference in their communities; “Encore!,” executive produced by the multi-talented Kristen Bell; “The Imagineering Story” a 6-part documentary from Emmy and Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Leslie Iwerks and animated short film collections “SparkShorts” and “Forky Asks A Question” from Pixar Animation Studios.
Some 600 episodes of “The Simpsons” is also included (with the latest season 31 coming later this year).
With entire households now being told to stay together and stay inside, we’re seeing a huge amount of pressure being put on to broadband networks and a true test of the multiscreen approach that streaming services have been building over the years.
In this case, you can use all the usuals: mobile phones, streaming media players, smart TVs and gaming consoles to watch the Disney+ service (including Amazon devices, Apple devices, Google devices, LG Smart TVs with webOS, Microsoft’s Xbox Ones, Roku, Samsung Smart TVs and Sony / Sony Interactive Entertainment, with the ability to use four concurrent streams per subscription, or up to 10 devices with unlimited downloads. As you would expect, there is also the ability to set up parental controls and individual profiles.
Carriers with paid-TV services that are also on board so far include Deutsche Telekom, O2 in the UK, Telefonica in Spain, TIM in Italy and Canal+ in France when the country comes online. No BT in the UK, which is too bad for me (sniff). Sky and NOW TV are also on board.
If you’ve ever entered a company’s office as a visitor or contractor, you probably know the routine: check in with a receptionist, figure out who invited you, print out a badge and get on your merry way. Brussels, Belgium- and New York-based Proxyclick aims to streamline this process, while also helping businesses keep their people and assets secure. As the company announced today, it has raised a $15 million Series B round led by Five Elms Capital, together with previous investor Join Capital.
In total, Proxyclick says it’s systems have now been used to register over 30 million visitors in 7,000 locations around the world. In the UK alone, over 1,000 locations use the company’s tools. Current customers include L’Oreal, Vodafone, Revolut, PepsiCo and Airbnb, as well as a number of other Fortune 500 firms.
Gregory Blondeau, founder and CEO of Proxyclick, stresses that the company believes that paper logbooks, which are still in use in many companies, are simply not an acceptable solution anymore, not in the least because that record is often permanent and visible to other visitors.
“We all agree it is not acceptable to have those paper logbooks at the entrance where everyone can see previous visitors,” he said. “It is also not normal for companies to store visitors’ digital data indefinitely. We already propose automatic data deletion in order to respect visitor privacy. In a few weeks, we’ll enable companies to delete sensitive data such as visitor photos sooner than other data. Security should not be an excuse to exploit or hold visitor data longer than required.”
What also makes Proxyclick stand out from similar solutions is that it integrates with a lot of existing systems for access control (including C-Cure and Lenel systems). With that, users can ensure that a visitor only has access to specific parts of a building, too.
In addition, though, it also supports existing meeting rooms, calendaring and parking systems and integrates with Wi-Fi credentialing tools so your visitors don’t have to keep asking for the password to get online.
Like similar systems, Proxyclick provides businesses with a tablet-based sign-in service that also allows them to get consent and NDA signatures right during the sign-in process. If necessary, the system can also compare the photos it takes to print out badges with those on a government-issued ID to ensure your visitors are who they say they are.
Blondeau noted that the whole industry is changing, too. “Visitor management is becoming mainstream, it is transitioning from a local, office-related subject handled by facility managers to a global, security and privacy driven priority handled by Chief Information Security Officers. Scope, decision drivers and key people involved are not the same as in the early days,” he said.
It’s no surprise then that the company plans to use the new funding to accelerate its roadmap. Specifically, it’s looking to integrate its solution with more third-party systems with a focus on physical security features and facial recognition, as well as additional new enterprise features.
Mass surveillance regimes in the UK, Belgium and France which require bulk collection of digital data for a national security purpose may be at least partially in breach of fundamental privacy rights of European Union citizens, per the opinion of an influential advisor to Europe’s top court issued today.
Advocate general Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s (non-legally binding) opinion, which pertains to four references to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), takes the view that EU law covering the privacy of electronic communications applies in principle when providers of digital services are required by national laws to retain subscriber data for national security purposes.
A number of cases related to EU states’ surveillance powers and citizens’ privacy rights are dealt with in the opinion, including legal challenges brought by rights advocacy group Privacy International to bulk collection powers enshrined in the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act; and a La Quadrature du Net (and others’) challenge to a 2015 French decree related to specialized intelligence services.
At stake is a now familiar argument: Privacy groups contend that states’ bulk data collection and retention regimes have overreached the law, becoming so indiscriminately intrusive as to breach fundamental EU privacy rights — while states counter-claim they must collect and retain citizens’ data in bulk in order to fight national security threats such as terrorism.
Hence, in recent years, we’ve seen attempts by certain EU Member States to create national frameworks which effectively rubberstamp swingeing surveillance powers — that then, in turn, invite legal challenge under EU law.
The AG opinion holds with previous case law from the CJEU — specifically the Tele2 Sverige and Watson judgments — that “general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users is disproportionate”, as the press release puts it.
Instead the recommendation is for “limited and discriminate retention” — with also “limited access to that data”.
“The Advocate General maintains that the fight against terrorism must not be considered solely in terms of practical effectiveness, but in terms of legal effectiveness, so that its means and methods should be compatible with the requirements of the rule of law, under which power and strength are subject to the limits of the law and, in particular, to a legal order that finds in the defence of fundamental rights the reason and purpose of its existence,” runs the PR in a particularly elegant passage summarizing the opinion.
The French legislation is deemed to fail on a number of fronts, including for imposing “general and indiscriminate” data retention obligations, and for failing to include provisions to notify data subjects that their information is being processed by a state authority where such notifications are possible without jeopardizing its action.
Belgian legislation also falls foul of EU law, per the opinion, for imposing a “general and indiscriminate” obligation on digital service providers to retain data — with the AG also flagging that its objectives are problematically broad (“not only the fight against terrorism and serious crime, but also defence of the territory, public security, the investigation, detection and prosecution of less serious offences”).
The UK’s bulk surveillance regime is similarly seen by the AG to fail the core “general and indiscriminate collection” test.
There’s a slight carve out for national legislation that’s incompatible with EU law being, in Sánchez-Bordona’s view, permitted to maintain its effects “on an exceptional and temporary basis”. But only if such a situation is justified by what is described as “overriding considerations relating to threats to public security or national security that cannot be addressed by other means or other alternatives, but only for as long as is strictly necessary to correct the incompatibility with EU law”.
If the court follows the opinion it’s possible states might seek to interpret such an exceptional provision as a degree of wiggle room to keep unlawful regimes running further past their legal sell-by-date.
Similarly, there could be questions over what exactly constitutes “limited” and “discriminate” data collection and retention — which could encourage states to push a ‘maximal’ interpretation of where the legal line lies.
Nonetheless, privacy advocates are viewing the opinion as a positive sign for the defence of fundamental rights.
In a statement welcoming the opinion, Privacy International dubbed it “a win for privacy”. “We all benefit when robust rights schemes, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, are applied and followed,” said legal director, Caroline Wilson Palow. “If the Court agrees with the AG’s opinion, then unlawful bulk surveillance schemes, including one operated by the UK, will be reined in.”
The CJEU will issue its ruling at a later date — typically between three to six months after an AG opinion.
The opinion comes at a key time given European Commission lawmakers are set to rethink a plan to update the ePrivacy Directive, which deals with the privacy of electronic communications, after Member States failed to reach agreement last year over an earlier proposal for an ePrivacy Regulation — so the AG’s view will likely feed into that process.
This makes the revised e-Privacy Regulation a *huge* national security battleground for the MSes (they will miss the UK fighting for more surveillance) and is v relevant also to the ongoing debates on “bulk”/mass surveillance, and MI5’s latest requests… #ePR
— Ian Brown (@1Br0wn) January 15, 2020
The opinion may also have an impact on other legislative processes — such as the talks on the EU e-evidence package and negotiations on various international agreements on cross-border access to e-evidence — according to Luca Tosoni, a research fellow at the Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law at the University of Oslo.
“It is worth noting that, under Article 4(2) of the Treaty on the European Union, “national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State”. Yet, the advocate general’s opinion suggests that this provision does not exclude that EU data protection rules may have direct implications for national security,” Tosoni also pointed out.
“Should the Court decide to follow the opinion… ‘metadata’ such as traffic and location data will remain subject to a high level of protection in the European Union, even when they are accessed for national security purposes. This would require several Member States — including Belgium, France, the UK and others — to amend their domestic legislation.”