The working party on co-operation in criminal matters (Justice ministry officials) has issued a new questionnaire about data retention to all member states. Answers have to be given by 29 July 2004, the results will be debated in the next meeting of the working party on 27 and 28 September 2004. Clearly the Dutch presidency of the EU is pushing the proposal ahead from the UK, Ireland, France and Sweden to create a framework decision on data retention. This proposal was introduced on 28 April 2004, to store the internet and telephony communication data from all 450 million European citizens for a period of 12 to 36 months, for law enforcement purposes. In the proceedings of the meeting, the ministers promise "An explanatory note on the proposal from the four Member States will follow."
According to the proceedings "A number of concerns were raised by different delegations, including: The exact scope and aim of the instrument and the exact kind of data covered needed to be examined/clarified. (...) The draft Framework Decision also concerned prevention, which went further than mutual assistance in criminal matters. The parts of the text on prevention needed clarification. The minimum period for retention of traffic data needed further examination, and was too long in the view of some delegations."
If the ministers of the member states accept the proposal for a framework decision, all traces of telephony of internet usage of all EU citizens will be stored for a long time. These so-called traffic data reveal who has been calling and e-mailing whom, which websites they have visited, and even where people were with their mobile phones.
The questionnaire is a follow-up to a previous questionnaire in 2002, in order to get updated information on traffic data from the 15 old Member States and to get information on the same subject from the 10 new Member States
The answers to the 2002 questionnaire showed 10 out of 15 member states had some sort of legal obligation to store traffic data, or were finalising new legislation. Only Austria, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden did and do not have any such obligation, while in the UK providers were pressured to voluntarily collaborate.
Questions 3, 4 and 6 of the new questionnaire seem designed to meet criticism about the proportionality, asking whether law enforcement agencies have specified the types of data they need in their investigations, to mention types of offences where the use of retained traffic data has proven to be of substantial importance for the investigation and finally if there are any reports from law enforcement authorities that indicate difficulties due to the non-existence of mandatory data retention. Question 7 seems the result from severe protest from the European association of internet service providers (ISPA), and asks whether countries reimburse the providers for the costs caused by the retention.
Proceedings of the working party of 4 June 2004 (25.06.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st10/st10841.en04.pdf
Presidency Questionnaire on traffic data retention (25.06.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st10/st10767.en04.pdf
EU questionnaire to member states on data retention (14.08.2002)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/aug/11490-r1.pdf
Answers to the questionnaire (20.11.2002)
http://servizi.radicalparty.org/data_retention/
The data protection commissioners of 14 of Germany's 15 states (Laender) as well as the National commissioner, Peter Schaar, have severely criticised the EU plan for mandatory traffic data retention and called upon the German government to vote against the proposal in the EU council of ministers. "There are good reasons why the national legislator has just denied to introduce mandatory data retention", the official data protectors declared: "The confidentiality of telecommunications, which is guaranteed under the German constitution, only allows for the storage of data on the use of public telecommunication networks - and in particular of the internet - in cases of tangible evidence of a severe crime."
Nevertheless, Germany's minister of Interior Affairs, Otto Schily, is known to be the driving force behind a new law to introduce mandatory data retention in Germany and to also put pressure on other EU states' governments to introduce similar measures.
While the EU wants all member states to store the extreme amounts of data virtually all citizens produce when they use the Internet, a mobile or fixed phone or any other communication device, it claims the data will be used only in very limited cases, in particular in connection with combating terrorism. The example of Great Britain, where many telecommunication providers already store the data under a so-called voluntary scheme, has shown however that there is a tendency with police forces to make use of the data, once it is stored, even where they suspect only minor infringements. Under the EU Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, internet service providers could be forced to provide large amounts of data on users suspected of exchanging copyrighted files on peer-to-peer networks.
"General retention of telecommunication data", the German commissioners add, "would hinder the fundamental rights on freedom of speech and on access to information. Processing of internet use habits reveals interests, preferences, and political affiliations of users. It is also highly questionable whether the proposed Framework Decision is compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with the protection of privacy and communications. The European court of Human Rights has already pointed out that member states cannot justify any measure they consider appropriate with the fight against terrorism."
As EDRI has learned from the European Commission, the Article 29 Working Party, which is composed of the 25 national data protection commissioners of all EU member states, is also preparing an opinion on data retention. A report that has been drafted by CNIL, the French DP authority, was discussed on 26 June in Brussels. It will be voted in a written procedure within the next few weeks. "By mid-July we should know whether there will be an opinion of the Working Party", a Commission source said.
Opinion German data protection commissioners (25.06.2004)
http://www.lda.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=161413&template...
Article 29 Working Party: Opinion 1/2003 on the storage of traffic data for billing purposes (29.01.2003)
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003...
'New German proposal for mandatory data retention' (02.06.2004)
http://www.edri.org/cgi-bin/index?id=000100000151
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU affairs director)
On his last day as President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox finally decided to give in to the demands from the Legal Affairs committee and the majority of political group leaders. The European Parliament has now asked the European Court of Justice to annul the recently signed EU-U.S. agreement on transfer of airline Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to U.S. government agencies.
European Digital Rights has signed a resolution against the PNR-transfer from the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), a coalition of more than 60 consumer organisations in the U.S. and Europe. It calls upon the EU and U.S. governments to suspend the agreement until much stronger privacy safeguards are adopted. The letter was submitted to EU and U.S. government representatives at the EU-U.S. Summit in Dublin on 25 June 2004.
European Parliament asks Court of Justice to annul EU-US passenger data deal (25.06.2004)
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp?fuseAction=showDocument&a...
TACD Resolution (English, also in French and German) (16.06.2004)
http://www.thepublicvoice.org/take_action/pnr-resol-action.html
The European Commission has funded a new project to make Digital Rights Management more acceptable to consumers. INDICARE (the Informed Dialogue about Consumer Acceptability of DRM Solutions in Europe) is distributing its first e-mail newsletter this week. The newsletter includes links to articles on the INDICARE website that are conceived as the starting point for online discussions. Under the E-Content programme 2003-2004 1 million euro is allocated for 'accompanying measures' like community building.
DRM-technology is seen by both the Commission and the (multi-)national entertainment industry as the best solution to control copyrights in a digital environment. Civil rights organisations, data protection authorities and consumer unions however are not very keen on giving complete control over their reading, listening and watching habits to industrial parties. Initiatives to integrate DRM in both hard- and software, like the TCPA initiative, have strongly been criticised for violating fundamental freedoms of computer and internet usage.
Apparently, the Commission believes there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea, it only needs some better public relations. The first few articles on the website painfully illustrate how arrogant the industry is currently thinking about citizens as passive consumers. The report 'A bite from the apple' about a DRM-conference in New York in April 2004, describes how DRM was re-defined as 'Digital Richness Management' by a representative from RightsCom, leaving no doubt about the destination of that wealth.
The report continues: "It was interesting to note that no representatives of consumer organisations or other institutions representing the consumer side were present at the conference. Invisible also were interest groups representing the interests of consumers as citizens in access to information services and infrastructure under affordable, reasonable conditions, and under conditions that respect further public interest objectives. (...) It was even more interesting to note that some of the conference participants clearly welcomed this situation. As Josh Hug, Development Manager at RealNetworks Inc. put it: "Consumers are not represented here, perhaps that is good. They do not have to be. They have already enough power."
Indicare website
http://www.indicare.org
Ross Anderson Trusted Computing FAQ (august 2003)
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
European Commission Communication on the Management of Copyright and Related Rights (16.04.2004)
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/docs/com-2004...
The European Court has condemned the kingdom of the Netherlands for a faulty implementation of the Privacy directive of 1997, also known as the ISDN-directive. In the Dutch telecommunication law of 1998 the obligation to erase or anonymise traffic data after termination of the call was not made specific enough, leaving ample room to the telecom operators to store sensitive data about their subscribers. Instead of just literally translating Article 6 of the directive, the Dutch inserted a reference to a decree that would specify which data had to be erased. The decree was never produced, and in October 2002, after plenty of warnings, the European Commission decided to take the issue to the European Court in Luxembourg.
On 19 May 2004, the new Dutch Telecommunication Law went into effect, with a revised article on traffic data in agreement with the new 2002 Privacy directive, that replaced the 1997 directive. The verdict is not insignificant though, in the light of new EU Council plans to introduce mandatory data retention for a period of 12 to 36 months. There is no legal obligation for data retention yet in the Netherlands, except for the location data of pre-paid mobile phones, for a period of 3 months. The new Telecom law obliges service providers to anonymise any historical data they might have kept.
European Court case C-350/02 (24.06.2004)
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79959375...()
The French data protection authority CNIL has declared the new U.S. mail-service 'Did they read it?' illegal. Through this service, launched in May 2004 by Rampell Software, subscribers get a report about the exact time their e-mail was opened, for how long, on what kind of operating system and if the mail was forwarded to other people. To use this service, subscribers simply forward their mail to Rampell, after which a one-pixel gif is added that allows for this kind of tracking. Rampell carefully avoids explaining the technology, and just promises that e-mails are being kept confidential.
The CNIL finds the service unacceptable under the French privacy legislation of 1978. The recipients do not have a choice to accept or refuse sending this information to the sender and aren't even informed. Because the service provides detailed information on the reading behaviour, the data are considered sensitive, and the collection illegal.
Any French subscriber to this service risks a prison sentence of 5 years and a fine of 300.000 euro.
Did they read it? : mise en garde de la CNIL contre le courriel espion (22.06.2004)
http://www.cnil.fr/index.php?id=1602&news³³0³=177&cHash=5f39b9...
Rampell 'Did they read it?'
http://www.didtheyreadit.com/
Richard Smith information website about web bugs
http://www.bugnosis.org/
The first Prepcom of the WSIS second phase took place from 24 to 26 June 2004 in Hammamet, Tunisia. The Prepcom started with major obstruction of civil society participation even before civil society could make their first intervention in the governmental plenary session.
On the second morning of the Prepcom, the Tunisian ambassador objected in advance to an intervention by Souhayr Belhassen, vice-president of the Tunisian Human Rights League. Belhassen was scheduled to address the governmental plenary on behalf of civil society. In her statement she emphasised that human rights, not least privacy and freedom of expression, should be fully respected during the Tunis phase of WSIS and in the host countries of the Summit. The ambassador, who claimed to speak on behalf of several civil society groups, objected to some of the content in the presentation and tried to remove her as a speaker.
After several emergency meetings, with attempts to obstruct both meetings and possible solutions from a number of agents provocateurs, the issue was finally resolved in a very dramatic turn of events on Saturday morning. The newly appointed WSIS president, the Latvian ambassador Janis Karklins, intervened and stated that Belhassen was to address the governmental plenary as agreed before.
However, the Prepcom also included positive steps forward. The first very positive sign was the accreditation of the 3 independent Tunisian NGOs, which were able to meet the administrative requirements to attend the WSIS second phase. This way, the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), Amnesty International Tunisia and the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women (ATFD) will be able to participate and express themselves in the name of their organisations during the WSIS process.
Also, the Human Rights Caucus organised a meeting on 24 June, which was very well-attended, including the representative from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. During the meeting the work and positions of the Caucus were explained to a number of newcomers to the process. The Human Rights Caucus continues to encourage new members to join, provided they represent organisations and not only individuals, and that they agree to the goal of protecting and promoting human rights standards in the WSIS process and in all countries of the world, not least the host countries of the Summit.
Human Rights Caucus
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis
Civil society reports from WSIS
http://www.worldsummit2005.org
Tunisian Human Rights League
http://www.ltdh.org
(Contribution by Rikke Frank Joergensen, EDRI-member Digital Rights Denmark and representative of the human rights caucus, together with Meryem Marzouki from EDRI-member IRIS.
10 years ago, on 23 June 1994, the TRIPS agreement was concluded as a part of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO. A good reason for the European Commission to have a party. After all, the Brussels executive body has not only taken the helm within the EU in transposing the agreement, but also goes much further than the agreement requires by pushing for example for civil and penal sanctions for intellectual property rights infringements, legal protection for DRM systems and the patentability of software.
Even though constantly under attack for taking such disputable initiatives, the Commission likes to see itself sidelined by international experts in the field of Intellectual Property rights. However, neither the Commission's 'Mr. Copyright' - Joerg Reinbothe, who is responsible for the proposals most widely acclaimed by IPR industries and most widely criticised by experts -, nor any of his colleagues of the Internal Market DG came to the two-day Conference organised in Brussels last week. Thierry Stoll, the DG Internal Market's Deputy Director General, was replaced last minute by a colleague from DG Trade, co-organising the conference.
So Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy was not interrupted by his colleagues when he asked whether the balance between rights-holders and users that TRIPS had established, was still valid ten years later. In his opening speech Lamy expressed a concern that recent bilateral agreements between developed and developing countries might force the latter into a 'TRIPS plus' situation, which may prevent them even from benefiting from what little flexibility TRIPS leaves. Lamy could not give a good answer to a question from the audience about the origins of copyright protection. "From the beginning of history, every country that has become wealthy had done so through copying - Germany and the U.S. copied from Britain, Japan from everyone else, and so one. To what extent is the the true purpose of TRIPS to prevent that from ever happening again?"
In a different context, the same question was raised by Vandana Shiva on the second day of the conference. TRIPS doesn't actually globalise IPR, it redefines those rights according to a practice drafted by Western industries. For example, it imposes on a country like India, where Mrs. Shiva chairs the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, to allow patents on life forms. These are not only a radical breach with Indian traditions that regard every form of life as sacred, but also allow for transnational companies to exploit traditional knowledge that has been in the public domain for ages.
This is were Lawrence Lessig took over. The Stanford law professor accused the Commission of having already lost sight of some obvious, simple truths by asking questions such as "Are there conflicts between IPRs and Human Rights?" or "Are intellectual property rights marginalising the public domain?". Not all culture and knowledge is commercial, Lessig said, and current Intellectual Property Rights burden the spread of knowledge throughout the world. IPR per se do not have to be an extremism, as long as they are balanced. But presently they have been taken over by a rent-seeking extremism that produces more extremism on the other side, with a growing number of persons who are not willing to respect any IPR law any more. Larry Lessig called this 'a failure of democracy'.
Conference site (23-24.06.2004)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/pr1106...
Conference Programme
http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/docs/2004/june/tradoc_117721.PDF
TRIPS Agreement
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm0_e.htm
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU affairs director)
During the international conference in Kiev 'Freedom of Information, Transparency, E-governance: Civic Society View' on 15 June 2004 the first Awards for E-Openness in the Ukraine were presented to 4 city councils. The aim of the Award is to demonstrate best practices of local authorities in interaction via official web sites. The Award is called a 'Crystal Dog', shaped as an e-mail @ sign on top of a glass cylinder, a name-pun on the sign called 'dog' in popular Ukrainian.
The Crystal Dogs were presented to the Kharkiv City Council, for setting the best example in online access to official documents and financial transparency and to the Kramatorsk City Council for dealing with petitions. A third award was presented to the Lubotin Town Council for the best practice amongst small towns of online deliberations and a final award to the Solomensky District Council of Kiev City for it's openness in interaction with users.
The conference was organised by Privacy Ukraine jointly with Internews-Ukraine and several civil society organisations, with the support of International Renaissance Foundation (Kiev) and OSI (Budapest). More than 90 participants from local authorities and Ukrainian regional civil society groups engaged in debate about the current trends, practical problems and legal obstacles for the development of the e-governance and e-democracy projects in the Ukraine. The main obstacle for e-openness in the Ukraine is the lack of appropriate legal and institutional grounds for the dissemination of public sector information via Internet.
Conference participants from local communities demonstrated numerous examples of information flow barriers established at local levels that hamper the establishment of partnerships between public bodies and local communities. For example, there is no Data Protection Act yet, but one IT-officer reported that the chief of the local council prohibited the online publication of a new act on council spending, because the act contained personal data about the recipients of medical care and publication would be a violation of data protection legislation. Another major problem is the lack of provisions regarding online petitions. Many local officials believe that the 'Act on Citizens' Requests' only allows hand-signed petitions, printed on paper.
The conference participants approved of 'Petition', a program document to improve the openness and accountability of state agencies as well as democracy development using information and communication technology in the Ukraine.
Conference and competition for E-Openness awards
http://www.e-uriadnik.org.ua/modules.php?name=Competitions
(Contribution by Andryi Payzuk, Privacy Ukraine)
Is there any proven link between hate speech on the Internet and committed hate crimes ? This was the difficult question faced by a meeting organised by OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) on the relationship between racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and hate crimes, which was held in Paris on 16-17 June 2004. The answer to this question is of high political importance since it could impact the U.S. position and legislation, which protects free speech - be it hate speech - under the First amendment.
The OSCE meeting, which was held in preparation of a further OSCE conference on the same issue to be held by the end of this year in Brussels, did not provide a definitive answer to this question. While the French representatives presented the direct relationship between hate speech and hate crime as obvious - without providing any evidence, however -, the U.S. representatives made it clear that only crime, not speech can lead to prosecution under U.S. legislation. Between these two extreme positions, most of the participants to the meeting called for in-depth research on this issue, so that the critical question raised by the OSCE could be discussed on a sound basis.
The meeting ended with the usual 'commitment to combat hate crimes', stressing 'the importance of promoting tolerance, mutual respect, dialogue, and understanding'. The conclusions presented by the chair of the meeting also report that the participants "agreed to promote, where appropriate under existing national legislation, areas of additional co-operation, particularly voluntary initiatives by NGOs, religious associations and/or other groups directed toward researching and monitoring racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement to violence on the Internet."
Unfortunately, the use of filtering software and other soft law instruments like hotlines and codes of conducts did not raise any discussion among the participants of the official sessions, while many civil liberty organisations, librarians, and other researchers have shown, through a number of well documented reports, how these practices and instruments may also lead to violations of internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Conference information and documents from speakers (16-17.06.2004)
http://www.osce.org/events/conferences/anti-racism/
Seminar held today by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (30.06.2004):'Guaranteeing Media Freedom on the Internet'
http://www.osce.org/news/show_news.php?id=4195
BBC: 'Internet's role in racism debated' (16.06.2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3813697.stm
Interview with Meryem Marzouki (in French)(17.06.2004)
'Filtering racist content leads to ignore it and prevents from fighting it'
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=215995
(Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
The online presence of Romanian MPs is still not very strong. According to a survey published by the Romanian eDemocracy group, the websites of the 2 chambers only present information and ignore bi-directional communication with citizens. In the absence of any interactive services, e-mail is the most important means of communication. But only 27% of the 485 Romanian MPs have a publicly available e-mail address. On average, the minimum in the 'old' EU member states is 46%.
32 of the 42 counties represented in the Senate don't have any senator with an e-mail address. Nevertheless, even if some MPs have an e-mail address, this doesn't guarantee their dialogue with the citizen: only 9% of the inquiries sent via e-mail receive an answer.
In a previous e-mail response study, conducted between 1 October and 30 November 2003, the percentage of e-mail addresses was 25%, with a similar small chance for citizens to get a reply (See EDRI-gram 2.6).
The authors of the survey made several recommendations for the Chamber of Deputies and Senate's websites.
Interaction: provide online communication tools (both for MPs and for site users);
Transparency: publish relevant and accessible information to allow the public to monitor MPs' activity;
Accountability: publish the lists with MPs' attendance of meetings and their votes (provided the vote was open);
Monitoring: create personal records of awards or disciplinary sanctions or other relevant information (i.e.: requests for parliamentary immunity cancellation);
Budget: give direct access to specific annual laws (especially in the chapter about the institutions).
According to the report, publishing such information online would lead not only to increased accountability of the MPs, but also to strengthening citizens' trust in the institutions that represents them.
(English) summary of the report (16.06.2004)
http://www.edemocratie.ro/editoriale/eng/edit_parl_160604.htm
Full report (in English and Romanian)
http://www.edemocratie.ro/publicatii/ParliamentRO.pdf
EDRI-gram 2.6 (24.03.2004)
http://www.edri.org/cgi-bin/index?id=000100000143
(Contribution by Bogdan Manolea, Romanian legal expert)
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted for a year-long delay of demanding visa waiver countries to introduce biometric passports for their citizens.
The 2002 Border Security Act demands from 27 countries the inclusion of chips with facial images in their passports, in order to continue participation in the US visa waiver programme. A deadline was set for 26 October 2004 after which citizens from most EU countries would either have to present a biometric passport or a visa to enter the United States.
The U.S. government requested a delay of two years for this requirement as none of the countries would be able to introduce the biometric passports this fall. Without a delay the U.S. state department would be swamped with visa applications from all travellers from the EU.
The House of Representatives only agreed to an one-year extension until 26 October 2005. The US Senate will yet have to approve the delay.
House approves one-year extension of biometric identifier requirement (14.06.2004)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/news06142004.htm
Reporters Without Borders have published their annual overview of government surveillance and censorship of the internet. The report exposes the crackdown on cyber-dissidents in routinely authoritarian regimes, such as China, but also pays a lot of attention to surveillance in traditionally democratic countries. "The report should not be seen as a kind of ranking of regimes by their repression of the internet, but more as an appeal for vigilance in countries where, as in democracies, it's still possible to expose abuses and flaws. And also an appeal for solidarity with those who are flagrantly deprived of freedom, such as the 70 or so cyber-dissidents currently in prison around the world".
Internet under surveillance 2004 (June 2004)
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=433
The OECD Privacy Online report is focused on the implementation of the OECD Privacy Guidelines online and "reflects the OECD ministerial high-level objective to build bridges between different national approaches in order to ensure the effective protection of privacy and personal data as well as the continued transborder flow of personal data on global networks". The reader shouldn't feel intimidated by the volume of the report as the actual practical guide only consists of 5 out of the 390 pages.
Privacy Online: OECD guidance on policy and practice (24.06.2004)
http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/9303051e.pdf
30 June-2 July 2004, Paris, France
'An information society or a controlled society?'
http://www.creis.sgdg.org/manifs/IS04programme.htm
28 July 2004, London, UK
6th annual Big Brother Awards ceremony organised by Privacy International
http://www.privacyinternational.org/bigbrother/uk2004/
10-11 September 2004, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
'Guaranteeing Media Freedom on the Internet'
Two day conference organised by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in the Amsterdam city hall.
http://www.osce.org/events/
14-16 September 2004, Wroclaw, Poland
The 26th International Conference on privacy and personal data protection:'the Right to Privacy - the Right to Dignity'. This annual gathering of the world's data protection commissioners will be preceded on 13 June by a publicly accessible conference organised by EPIC, Privacy International and EDRI.
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/168/id_art/175/j/en/
15-17 September 2004, Strasbourg, France
The Council of Europe is planning a major international conference on "The Challenge of Cybercrime", which will bring together senior politicians, computer industry leaders and experts from around the world. No online information yet.
29-30 September 2004, Paris, France
5th Worldwide forum on electronic democracy, organised by Mr André Santini, French Member of Parliament and president of the Global Cities dialogue
http://www.issy.com/statiques/e-democratie/index_EN.htm
30 September-3 October 2004, Berlin, Germany
New EDRI-member FIfF is organising its 20th annual meeting on critical computer science in the Humboldt university.
http://www.fiff.de/aktuelles/
16 October 2004, Lucerne, Switzerland
Swiss Big Brother Awards
http://www.bigbrotherawards.ch
26 October 2004, Vienna, Austria
Austrian Big Brother Awards
http://www.bigbrotherawards.at
29 October 2004, Bielefeld, Germany
German Big Brother Awards
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de