(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The European Parliament's Legal Affairs committee has adopted on 20 March 2007 the draft IPRED directive following the opinions presented by MEP Nicola Zingaretti, with some important amendments though.
The good news is that the very controversial definition of "commercial scale infringement", that previously included the IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights) infringements by private users for personal use, was detailed and now the text refers to a criminal infringement as "a deliberate and conscious infringement of the intellectual property right for the purpose of obtaining commercial advantage."
The patents and utility models have been excluded from the scope of the directive. From the unexamined IPRs, design rights, database rights, and possibly rights related to semiconductor topographies are still in.
The bad news is that definitions are kept vague, the Committee considering that the European Court of Justice should interpret them.
The provision that criminalizes aiding and abetting or inciting to infringe an intellectual property right was kept in the text, even though it was a large consensus among the industry members (from open source software supporters to major software companies lobbyists) that this text is an important threat to every company in the software and the Internet industry.
Also, the recommendations made by Max Planck Institute and Chartered Institute of Patent Agents regarding the necessary definitions in order to clearly limit the directive to piracy cases, were not included in the adopted report.
FFII warned even before the session that the Rapporteur failed to protect the European industry and citizens. Pieter Hintjens, FFII president, said: "The proposed text is an undetermined and shoddy draft which pleases only one party, but will harm many others. The rapporteur failed to choose for the European industry, and his last minute changes are making the situation even worse. He had a year to fix this text but seems to be unable to work out a sensible compromise. This sharply contrasts with the Industry Committee's rapporteur David Hammerstein, who managed to obtain support from all political groups for a fairly balanced text."
EU Weighs Copyright Law (20.03.2007)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129995/article.html
Criminal Sanctions Rapporteur fails to protect European industry
(19.03.2007)
http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/Criminal_Sanctions_Rapporteur_fai...
EC leaves personal use out of criminal IP laws ( 22.03.2007)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/ec_ip_incite/
IPRED wiki - FFII
http://www.ipred.org/
EDRI-Gram: ENDitorial :Constitution by criminalisation (31.01.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.2/enditorial
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The European Commission presented its new proposal for the radio frequency identification (RFID) tags strategy for Europe after one year of consultations. The strategy will be drafted in cooperation with a Stakeholder Group to be created and Article 29 Working Party.
An EU study had been initiated after a 6-months period of consultations that had shown concerns related to the use of RFID tags especially regarding public awareness and fears that the system would affect privacy. The study advised on the necessity to assure the public that the tags would not turn into a large-range surveillance system and that people would have control on the information included in the tags.
At that time more than 55% of the individuals and organisations having participated in the study considered a change in the legislation was needed for data and privacy protection.
Commissioner Viviane Reding presented the new Commission's strategy on 15 March 2007, at CeBIT, the world's largest annual IT fair in Hanover, Germany. Having in view the results of the consultation, the Commissioner stated: "The Commission's RFID strategy will therefore seek to raise awareness, stress the absolute need for citizens to decide how their personal data is used and ensure that Europe removes existing obstacles to RFID's enormous potential."
In order to take into account the RFID chips booming market, the European Commission will make changes to the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive with amendments that will be proposed by the middle of 2007.
Commissioner Reding said that she was forming an RFID Stakeholder Group made up of citizens, scientists, data protection experts and businesses that would work along with the EU advisory group Article 29 Data Protection Working Group in helping the Commission to develop its RFID strategy and discuss how the tags should be used.
According to Reding, the RFID Stakeholder Group will help in finding ways for consumers to protect themselves from potential surveillance that the RFID might allow and educate the public on the issue.
"We must not over-regulate RFID (Radio Frequency Identification)," also said Viviane Reding, at the Cebit show, considering that the radio tags market should be given the possibility to develop without interference from the European Commission.
She also stated that, by the end of the year, recommendations would be published on issues of data protection and privacy related to RFID along with an assessment of other necessary law changes.
"RFID is of policy concern because of its potential to become a new motor of growth and jobs if the barriers to innovation can be overcome.. production price of RFID tags is now approaching a level that permits wide commercial and public sector deployment. With wider use, it becomes essential that the implementation of RFID takes place under a legal framework that affords citizens effective safeguards for fundamental values, health, data protection and privacy." was the Commission statement.
EU study on RFID tags shows major privacy concerns (25.10.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.20/rfid
Commission proposes a European policy strategy for smart radio tags
(15.03.2007)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm...
Public to shape smart tag policy (15.03.2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6453931.stm
RFID chips will force changes to Privacy and Electronic Communications
Directive (20.03.2007)
http://www.out-law.com/page-7890
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The French Ministry of Culture has forwarded to the European Commission a draft decree for the application of the right to reply legislation introduced by art. 6 IV of the law on Digital Economy of 21 June 2004 ('Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique' or LCEN) that implemented the EU e-commerce directive.
Basically, art. 6.IV of LCEN foresees that any natural or legal person directly or indirectly named in an online communication service is granted the right to reply on the same service. With this very extended scope, the French legislator has assimilated the online services to the written press regime, a decision which was opposed by French EDRI-member IRIS during the Parliamentary discussion on the LCEN. IRIS proposed to limit the right to reply to circumstances when inaccurate information is provided on the named person, or when his/her reputation or honour has been touched.
If such limitations had been considered, the current French law would have been more in line with European developments on the right to reply. A Council of Europe Recommendation adopted on 15 December 2004, sets the scope of the right to reply to "offering a possibility to react to any information in the media presenting inaccurate facts about (the named person) and which affect his/her personal rights". At the EU level, a recommendation including the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and online information services industry was adopted on 12 December 2006 by the European Parliament. The document proposed by the Council considers again that: "It is appropriate for the right of reply or equivalent remedies to apply to on-line media, and to take into account the specific features of the medium and service concerned." The new Audiovisual Media Services Directive of 2006 also included the right of reply in the new media, the text referring only to the TV-like services on the web.
The French draft decree specifies that this right to reply is granted provided the respective site does not offer the possibility of a direct reply such as forums, chat rooms etc. The law does not cover the right to reply for the general interest or for a third party (except for cases where there is a mandate in this sense).
The request for the right to reply can be addressed in writing preferably by registered letter with acknowledgement to the manager of the respective site, within 3 months from the publication of the article that makes the subject of the request. The 3-months period is necessary for the public to acknowledge the article in question. The webmaster is supposed to place the respective reply on the site within 3 days from the receipt of the request and the reply must be available "under similar conditions as those of the message under discussion and presented as a result of exercising the right to reply". The reply must be accessible at the same place on the site as the initial article and be on-line for as long at the former is.
The application decree includes two debatable provisions. One of them states that the person requesting the right to reply can give this right up in case the webmaster accepts to modify or eliminate the article in cause. This could give the possibility to apply pressure on the websites.
Another questionable provision refers to the format of the reply message. The right to reply is said to have a maximum length that should be equal to the message under discussion not exceeding 200 lines. This can lead to various interpretations on the Internet as the lengths of lines may differ according to the characters or font used.
The EU Member States have to give their opinion on this application decree by mid-June after which the French Minister of Culture will sign the decree or modify it accordingly. In any case, this would happen after the French presidential and legislative elections.
Draft Decree on the right to reply applicable to online public communication
services for the application of item IV of article 6 of law no. 2004-575 of
21 June 2004 (only in French)
http://www.tntlex.com/public/projet_decret_droit_reponse.pdf
Law n 2004-575 of 21 June 2004 for trust in digital economy (only in
French, 22.06.2004)
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=ECOX0200175L
IRIS - Analysis of Meryem Marzouki - the Law on electronic economy (LEN)
(only in French, 19.02.2003)
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/len/point-len0203.html#3.3
Council of Europe - Rec(2004)161 of the Committee of Ministers to
member states on the right of reply in the new media environment
(15.12.04)
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/press/News/2004/rec(2004)16.asp
Right to Reply: how to exercise it on the Net (only in French, 20.03.07)
http://www.journaldunet.com/juridique/juridique060620.shtml
Internet offers itself a right to reply (only in French, 20.03.07)
http://www.ecrans.fr/spip.php?article997&var_recherche=droit%20de%...
EDRI-gram: New EU recommendation includes the right of reply in the online
media (20.12.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.24/right-of-reply
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
After consultations with privacy groups in Europe and the US, Google has decided to reduce to 18 - 24 months, the retention time for data related to users and their searches.
Google is presently storing search information together with IP (Internet Protocol) addresses which can be further on used to identify the person behind a search. "When you search on Google, we collect information about your search, such as the query itself, IP addresses and cookie details," said a Google blog post written by Peter Fleischer, the company's privacy lawyer in Europe, and its deputy general counsel Nicole Wong.
The company has announced that it will now limit this data retention period by deleting the IP addresses related to searches after 18-24 months. The search information itself will be still stored for as long as considered necessary.
"(...)unless we're legally required to retain log data for longer, we will anonymize our server logs after a limited period of time. We will continue to keep server log data but will make this data much more anonymous, so that it can no longer be identified with individual users, after 18-24 months." said Fleischer and Wong.
This measure was considered by privacy advocates as a positive one. "It's the type of thing we have been advocating for a number of years" was Ari Schwartz's, deputy director of the CDT, statement to BBC.
Mr. Fleischer said that the company would keep the information for up to 24 months in order to be in agreement with the EU Data Retention Directive that gave the member states mandate to pass laws that would force ISPs to retain certain customer data for a period varying between 6 months and 2 years.
Privacy groups are still concerned about the fact that the data collected by Google or other search engines or web companies could be used to monitor people's online habits.
Richard Clayton, a researcher at Cambridge University specialised in web traceability, considers Google's initiative as a good movement but still insufficient as he considers that there is no real justification for retaining the data for 2 years.
He believes that the company takes advantage of the European directive in establishing the time limits to hold to the data and that the real reason is actually a financial one related to the costs involved in anonymising the searches.
"There is no sense of whether this directive even applies to web search logs," he said.
Google considers that by taking this measure it is "striking the right balance between two goals: continuing to improve Google's services for you, while providing more transparency and certainty about our retention practices," as stated Fleischer and Wong. However they have also added that: "In the future, it's possible that data retention laws will obligate us to retain logs for longer periods."
Yahoo, on the other hand, stated it would keep the data for as long as the EU directive requires but made no statement on what would happen after 24 months.
"We are reviewing the European Data Retention Directive as it comes into force across Europe. Our services covered by the directive will comply with the laws as they are enacted in each country that we have a presence." was Yahoo comment.
Taking steps to further improve our privacy practices (14.03.2007)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/taking-steps-to-further-improve...
Privacy bodies back Google step (15.03.2007)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6453137.stm
Google will delete search identifiers after two years (20.03.2007)
http://www.out-law.com/page-7888
Google Log Retention Policy FAQ (14.03.2007)
http://216.239.57.110/blog_resources/google_log_retention_policy_faq.p...
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
A proposal for the creation of a centralized database of fingerprints from all 27 EU countries was included in a new European Commission document that sets out the goals for 2008.
The fingerprints database is to be operational by the end of 2008 and it will include sensitive information that could be shared with third parties, such as US law enforcement authorities.
This proposal, considered as a Big Brother type of initiative, has raised the opposition of the sceptics as well as supporters of EU being seen as a trap of a super-state as well as a threat to civil liberties respectively.
"The European Union is gaining criminal justice powers very rapidly. The problem is that one thing leads to another and that setting up centralised institutions is then used as an excuse for further harmonisation of powers which will take decisions about criminals and victims further away from ordinary voters." Said Neil O'Brien of Open Europe.
Baroness Ludford, a Liberal Democrat MEP, considers that this proposal rings an alarm for civil liberties and also thinks that Brussels is "overreaching itself.. Of course MEPs want to fight crime and terrorism, but individual privacy must be safeguarded. We need to know who can access this database and what the information can be used for. It is irresponsible of the European Commission to act like this. It is doing the euro-sceptics' job for them."
Brussels officials have confirmed that fact that the implementation of such a centralised database is being studied but abstained from saying whether the fingerprints would be shared with allies such as the US as it is now the case with airline passenger data.
A spokesman for Franco Frattini, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, confirmed the fact that this proposal is an additional project to the voluntary sharing of fingerprint information agreed by home affairs ministers in January and that it would be pursued as a "very important, if not indispensable, tool in combating cross-border organised crime and terrorism."
Central fingerprint database plan draws fire from all over EU (16.03.2007)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1522577.ece
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The Commission received these days also a totally new draft of the Framework Decision on data protection in police and judicial cooperation. The proposal was sent by Germany as the EU Council President and reffers to data protection in the security sector.
The draft, made public by Statewatch, includes the establishment of an overriding regulatory authority for all the database systems for criminal prosecution, coordinated by the EU Council and is mainly aimed at ensuring the legal sharing of data between criminal prosecutors.
Germany has however included in the proposal a clause that would implement the sharing of police data with non-member states even if the framework resolution is passed. Moreover, the proposal states all authorities "that deal specifically with matters of national security," are exempted.
Although this proposal grants citizens with the right to access data that security authorities have about them, it does not give access to information in case such access hampers the work of the investigators, is a violation of secrecy requirements or affects domestic peace and security or natural interests.
German government wants more exceptions to EU data protection for security
reasons (20.03.2007)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/87088
Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data
processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal
matters (13.03.2007)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/mar/eu-dp-presidency-draft-mar-07....
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
On 25 March 2006, several Belarusian web-sites: ucpb.org, svaboda.org, charter97.org, belhelcom.org, belaruspartisan.org, gazetaby.com and livejournal.com providing independent news and information were unavailable from 9.00 till 16.00 within the country borders.
Belarusian authorities have the technical and legal possibility to restrict access because of Beltelecom monopoly. According to article 44 of the national Law On Electronic Communication adopted in 2005: " The national operator of electronic communications is the operator having the duties of the mandatory rendering of the universal electronic communications services on the whole territory of the Republic of Belarus according to the instructions of the Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Belarus, and who will have the exclusive right for passage of the international traffic and connection to the electronic communications networks of the foreign states. "
Amendments to the law are planned to be made in order to meet WTO membership requirements. However, there are no plans to make any changes in the above article.
Belarusian authorities restrict internet access (26.03.2007)
http://www.e-belarus.org/news/200703261.html
EDRI-gram: Censorship in Belarusian Internet cafes (28.02.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.4/belarus
(Thanks to Mikhail Doroshevich - e-belarus.org)
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
The UK Court of Appeal has ruled that general ideas in a computer game can be copied, in the appeal Nova Productions, producer of Pocket Money computer game, made against two rival companies, Mazooma Games and Bell Fruit Games.
Nova Productions had lost its case in first instance to the UK High Court by which it was accusing Mazooma Games and Bell Fruit Games for having used elements of its pool based game Pocket Money in creating their Jackpot Pool and Trick Shot games respectively, therefore infringing its copyright.
The High Court ruled against Nova in July 2006 when Nova argued that the EU's Software Directive of 1991 provided protection for programs as literary works claiming that the preparatory design material had been copied by its competitors. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal that considered that what had been copied was an underlying idea, and not a preparatory design. General ideas and principles are not protected by the law provided the source code and graphics are not copied.
Nova did not claim the source code or graphics of its game had been copied but claimed there was extra right in the game images related to a power bar used to measure the pool shot strength and a cue control mechanism.
Lord Justice Jacobs, who gave the ruling, said that while the claimant tried to show the court that there was in its game there was an effect of artistic work by a series of graphic frames showing "in-time" movement of cue and meter, the Court found that for copyright purposes the moving images must be considered only as a series of still images, each of them with its own copyright protection. "A series of drawings is a series of graphic works, not a single graphic work in itself," said Jacob.
Another reason at the basis of the court decision was that copying of another person's work is allowed provided the copying is not substantial. "The appeal on literary copyright fails on the simple ground that what was found to have inspired some aspects of the defendants' game is just too general to amount to a substantial part of the claimants' game," said Jacobs.
Jacobs also said that the law gave protection to very specific things and therefore some parts of the creative process are not protected by copyright law. "An idea consisting of a combination of ideas is still just an idea. That is as true for ideas in a computer program as for any other copyright work."
The Court found that protecting such general ideas as those brought into discussion by Nova does not make the object of the copyright law or the relevant European directives and moreover it might even lead to damaging businesses.
"If protection for such general ideas as are relied on here were conferred by the law, copyright would become an instrument of oppression rather than the incentive for creation which it is intended to be," said Jacobs. "Protection would have moved to cover works merely inspired by others, to ideas themselves."
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions - Nova
Productions vs. Mazooma Game and Bell Fruit Games (14.03.2007)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/219.html
Ideas behind computer games can be copied, says Court of Appeal (22.03.2007)
http://www.out-law.com/page-7896
Games firm denied European court hearing (27.07.2006)
http://www.out-law.com/page-7140
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
More questions than answers were produced by a full day of discussions, 26 March 2007, on Passenger Name Records (PNR), including a public seminar by the European Parliament LIBE committee on transfers of personal data to the U.S. (PNR, SWIFT, and "Safe Harbour"), as well as a preparatory workshop of the Article 29 Working Party of national data protection authorities on the EU approach to a new PNR agreement with the US.
PNR can contain intimate personal information and enable the construction of detailed histories of your movements. It's generated every time you make an airline reservation, even if you don't take the flight. PNR are being used for profiling and controling movements.
The sessions showed a high level of attention being paid to these issues. Data protection authorities, MEPs, European airlines, NGOs, and invited academics and experts all stressed their concern that human rights and data protection are being bypassed by the European Commission and Council. The European parliament, as well as the Article 29 Working Party, have almost no information about what is actually being negotiated in the new long-term PNR agreement.
The response from Council and Commission representatives was: "Trust us, and trust the US authorities", but they had few answers to specific questions. At the end of the day, issues remaining on the table included:
evidence of its effectiveness. "If there is any evidence that PNR data helps the fight against terrorism, I would like to see it", MEP and rapporteur on PNR Sophie In't Veld demanded. Commissioner Jonathan Faull replied that any evidence must remain secret as a matter of national security.
A program justified as an anti-terrorist measure is being used primarily for general law enforcement and border control. "We are as fanatic as the Americans about terrorism," said LIBE Committee vice-chair Staphos Lambrinidis. "But thievery is not terrorism. Illegal immigration is not terrorism." There is a difference between what is necessary and what is useful. Data protection is a fundamental right, and exceptions should be considered only if it is truly necessary for fundamental purposes - not merely if it is useful, or for less fundamental purposes.
MEPs and Peter Schaar, director of the German data protection authority and chair of the Art. 29 Working Party, insisted that an independent audit of the current interim arrangement had to be completed before any long-term agreement was approved.
The 2003 EDRI campaign to "ask for your data from travel companies" showed that the only way to find out how PNR are being used is for European travellers to assert their rights to access their data. US activism is of no help here because people in the US have no right to access their personal data. Therefore, new requests by Europeans for access to their travel records (including more recently disclosed categories and uses of data) are essential to uncover and document what is actually happening. You can help by asking for your data if you travel to the US. The Identity Project has prepared sample letters in English for the UK that you can use as a model to request your data. These could also be adapted to other European languages and countries. This action is also necessary because even if airlines have opposed government demands for them to make costly changes in their business processes (and to function as assistants to the police), they have not made any legal challenges to government demands for their passengers' data. With no legal challenges in Europe, it will remain difficult to accurately assess the situation.
agreement.
The European Court of Justice overturned the original PNR agreement on constitutional grounds, but the ECJ did not decide if the substance of the agreement was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In this context, seminar participants insisted that data protection and freedom of movement were fundamental rights that had to be protected, and that a Data Protection Framework Decision for the third pillar was urgently needed.
Once PNR and other data reach the US, US assurances that data will be used "in accordance with US law" have no meaning, because there are loopholes in US privacy laws for government use of data and no rules or restrictions on commercial use of personal data.
agreement. Concerns were raised that the proposed "Open Skies" treaty with the US would legally override the PNR agreement, and would require compliance with recommendations by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), thus delegating authority for future decisions on PNR to ICAO. Such an arrangement would transfer legislative power to a forum outside the EU, where civil society, data protection commissioners and human rights advocates have no voice. In addition, both the side letter by Stewart Baker of the US Department of Homeland Security which accompanied the interim agreement, and the disclosures after the interim agreement was concluded regarding the use of PNR in the DHS "Automated Targeting System" (ATS), suggested that the US considers itself free to "move the goalposts" on PNR use unilaterally.
Gus Hosein of Privacy International stressed that the US is not alone in its demands for PNR, and that Europeans should be equally concerned about similar measures by the EU and its members. The Commission is considering whether to require government access to PNR, while Tim Rymer from the UK Customs Office reported that the UK is already using the "Semaphore" program to profile travellers as part of its "e-borders" initiative.
Many questions regarding the number of fields in the PNR, and even their content, as well as the role of Computerised Reservation Systems (CRS), made substantive discussion difficult. As David Smith of the UK data protection authority noted, "One country needs 25 fields and another needs 34. Why?" Much of what happens to PNR's, and how it is possible to use them, is the result of a complex, poorly documented travel information architecture developed over several decades on the basis of mainframe computers, flat files, and narrow-bandwidth communications links.
Throughout the day, attention was focused on the roles of commercial intermediaries in processing personal data. PNR travel data, SWIFT financial data, telecommunications data and Internet access data raise parallel concerns regarding data retention, government access to this data and use of it for profiling, and the role and responsibility of the small numbers of information intermediaries that play key roles in each of these parallel networks.
Companies like SWIFT for electronic fund transfers, and the four major global CRS for PNR, are invisible to consumers, and claim they are only message transmission services and not responsible as "data controllers". But these are the companies that actually transmit financial and travel data to the US, and make it available to the US government.
Currently, CRS are subject to strong, but unenforced, EU privacy regulations - Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerized reservation systems: "A system vendor shall not make personal information concerning a passenger available to others not involved in the transaction without,the consent of the passenger." "The subscriber shall inform the consumer of the name and address of the system vendor, the purposes of the processing, the duration of the retention of individual data and the means available to the data subject of exercising his access rights."
The Commission is currently conducting a public consultation and accepting comments through 27 April 2007 on whether the Code of Conduct for CRS should be amended or repealed entirely, as it has already been done in the US. You can tell the Commission you want them to retain, strengthen, and enforce these notice and consent rules - not repeal them.
Edward Hasbrouck - What's in a PNR?
http://hasbrouck.org/articles/PNR.html
LIBE - Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs seminar
(26.03.2007)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/default_en.htm
EDRI Campaign against the illegal transfer of European travellers' data to
the USA
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/airline/0305
Europeans: Time to ask for your travel records (The Identity
Project) includes sample requests to airlines, travel agencies, and
reservation systems (20.10.2006)
http://papersplease.org/wp/2006/10/20/europeans-time-to-ask-for-your-t...
American Travelers to Get Secret 'Risk Assessment' Scores (30.11.2006)
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005030
A common EU approach to the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for law
enforcement purposes - Article 29 Working Party
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/others/2007_3...
Council Regulation 2299/89 (13.08.1999)
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/consultation/doc/2007_04_27/e...
Europe reconsidering rules for reservation systems (4.03.2007)
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001225.html
(Contribution by Erik Josefsson - Electronic Frontier Foundation and Edward Hasbrouck - Identity Project )
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies: A Survey
UNESCO - Information for All Programme
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001499/149992E.pdf
Study on the Implementation and Effect in Member States' Laws of Directive
2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related
Rights in the Information Society - report to the European Commission, DG
Internal Market, February 2007
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-stu...
Part II: Country Reports on the Implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in
the Member States
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/infosoc-stu...
Digital Security and Privacy for Human Rights Defenders - Manual published
by Front Line
http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/manual/en/esecman/
Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Visually Impaired People: WIPO
study published
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=75696
(Dieser Artikel ist auch in deutscher Sprache verfügbar)
11-13 April 2007, Berlin, Germany
re:publica 2007 - Leben im Netz
http://www.re-publica.de
11 April 2007, London, United Kingdom
Support ORG
http://supportorgandparty.eventbrite.com/
14 April 2007, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
Demonstration "Freiheit statt Angst" (Freedom instead of Fear) against
growing surveillance, organized by the Working Group against Data
Retention and supported by EDRi-Members CCC, FIFF, FITUG, FOEBUD, NNM, and
others. Start: Main Station, End: Paulskirche
http://www.freiheitstattangst.de/
23-24 April 2007, Strasbourg, France
Council of Europe Symposium on e-democracy
The deadline for registering is Tuesday 3 April 2007.
http://www.coe.int/t/e/integrated_projects/democracy/
19 April 2008, Brussles, Belgium
Should there be an EU Freedom of Information Act?
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/mar/eu-foi-seminar-brussels.pdf
1-4 May 2007, Montreal, Canada
7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP2007)
http://www.cfp2007.org/live/
18 May 2007, Oxford, UK
Global Internet Filtering Conference 2007
The OpenNet Initiative is holding its first public conference to discuss the
current state of play of Internet filtering worldwide
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/oniconference07/Main_Page
18-19 May 2007, Brasov, Romania
eLiberatica - The Benefits of Open and Free Technologies - Romanian IT Open
Source and Free Software Conference
http://www.eliberatica.ro/
11-15 June 2007, Geneva, Switzerland
Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda:
Fourth Session
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=11927
14 June 2007, Paris, France
ENISA/EEMA European eIdentity conference - Next Generation Electronic
Identity - eID beyond PKI
http://enisa.europa.eu/pages/eID/eID_ws2007.htm
15-17 June 2007, Dubrovnik, Croatia
Creative Commons iSummit 2007
http://wiki.icommons.org/index.php/ISummit_2007
17-22 June 2007 Seville, Spain
19th Annual FIRST Conference, "Private Lives and Corporate Risk"
http://www.first.org/conference/2007/
18-22 June 2007, Geneva, Switzerland
Second Special Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related
Rights (SCCR)
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=12744