This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ACTA: Europäische Kommission ignoriert Europäisches Parlament offens...
After years of effort from civil society and from the European Parliament, the European Commission finally published a draft text on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
The most immediately striking point is that the "digital chapter" is still in the text and still contains provisions on ISP liability. This is despite the fact that the European Parliament called on the Commission in 2008 to "ensure that ACTA only concentrates on IPR enforcement measures and not on substantive IPR issues such as the scope of protection, limitations and exceptions, secondary liability or liability of intermediaries" and in March 2010 to limit the negotiations to limit the negotiations "to the existing European IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting".
The Commission also avoided publishing any previous texts, which are essential to the interpretation of international agreements - leaving the real meaning of key parts of the text still hidden. For example, the published text includes the famous proposal requiring parties to limit the liability of online service providers unless they adopt and implement "policies" to monitor their networks but the real meaning of this (such as "three strikes" or equally intrusive measures) is hidden in the unpublished preparatory texts. Other issues, such as the dangerous and undefined "commercial scale" criterion for criminal liability for infringements are all too clear in the text, however.
While the digital chapter contains a wide variety of options, the one point of consistency is that the obligations are severe while the safeguards are limited and legally weak. This is a big problem for citizens in the European Union, but it will be a much greater problem to transpose these obligations into developing countries, which will not be party to enforceable human rights treaties or privacy legislation. It is therefore likely to be a global disaster for citizens' rights - made even worse by the EU's recent endorsement of Internet blocking.
This agreement is meant to become a global standard for trade agreements. If this happens, what will be left of the EU's historical credibility in the fight for free speech and democracy when it starts asking grateful undemocratic governments to place obligations on Internet access providers to "terminate or prevent" infringements? Of course, "those measures, procedures, and remedies shall also be fair and proportionate" but it is almost absurd to think that legal action would be taken if one party's implementation was excessive. It is, after all, an intellectual property agreement and not a human rights instrument.
Overall, before the publication of the ACTA document, the process had problems of transparency, forum shopping, democracy and proportionality. The issue of transparency has been slightly improved, although only slightly. In the absence of earlier drafts and the positions of the different negotiating "partners" this can hardly be considered to be full transparency. The not-just-anti-counterfeiting, not-really-trade, not-yet-agreement has a long way to go to before it could be considered better than useless.
ACTA - Released text (21.04.2010)
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=552
European Parliament resolution on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade (18.12.2008)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&...
European Parliament resolution on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations (10.03.2010)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7...
(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Irland plant Internetsperren
In January 2010, EDRi-member Digital Rights Ireland filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) Request with the Department of Justice asking for all documents dealing with internet blocking by ISPs. The response came back in March, refusing access to almost every internal document!
Sometimes, however, knowing what is being concealed can be informative. When answering FOI requests, departments prepare a schedule of records listing each document they hold, by data and title.
Looking at the list provided, it becomes clear that for some time now the Department of Justice has been proposing the introduction of internet blocking in Ireland and has been doing this under the radar, without any public consultation or legislative approval. Indeed, it is clear from the list that the Department is not planning on introducing legislation but instead intends to introduce this new form of censorship without any legal basis, just following the now discredited Norwegian and Danish models.
In another news related to Irish digital rights, the biggest ISP Eircom has been given the go-ahead to cut off customers accused of copyright infringement by Ireland's High Court. The practice does not breach data protection law, according to the Court ruling.
FOI shows Department of Justice planning internet blocking for Ireland
(16.04.2010)
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2010/04/16/foi-shows-department-of-justice...
Irish Justice FOI Re Internet Filtering - Index (16.04.2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30017476/Justice-FOI-Re-Internet-Filtering-I...
Putting up barriers to a free and open internet (16.04.2010)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0416/1224268442542.ht...
Irish court says Eircom disconnections do not breach privacy laws
(19.04.2010)
http://www.out-law.com/page-10930
Judegment from 16.04.2010
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/7e...
(Thanks to EDRi-member Digital Rights Ireland)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Britisches Parlament stimmt für Digital Economy Bill
In a hasty meeting that lasted only two hours and a half, the UK Parliament, with an overwhelming majority (189 votes to 47), passed on 8 April 2010 the Digital Economy Bill, in third reading, without a real debate, which means that the bill will get royal assent and become law.
The Labour version of the website blocking clause as well as the 3-strikes clauses, including "technical measures for automated blocking" remained. Clause 43 on orphan works which was strongly opposed by photographers was dropped. "The UK government wanted to introduce a law to allow anyone to use your photographs commercially, or in ways you might not like, without asking you first. They have failed," said the photographers' site.
The Liberal Democrats opposed the bill and there was an attempt by Tom Watson to table amendments which were not considered. Watson drew the attention on Clause 11 which gives the Secretary of State the right to order technical measures apparently as he sees fit, thus allowing for abuse acts.
"We did our best to prevent the Digital Economy Bill being rushed through at the last moment. It badly needed more debate and amendment, and we are extremely worried that it will now lead to completely innocent people having their internet connections cut off," said Peter Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats who added: "It was far too heavily weighted in favour of the big corporations and those who are worried about too much information becoming available. It badly needs to be repealed, and the issues revisited."
The Open Rights Group did not believe this was a complete defeat. "Firstly, this is a huge victory for transparency. Thousands of people watched and commented on what would have, a few years ago, been a quiet, barely public event. Secondly, we have mobilised a huge movement, that is capable of influencing the election, and showing up politicians over the next month, and beyond," stated the group.
Talk Talk telecom provider expressed its intention to refuse to bow to the new law to be. "After the election we will resume highlighting the substantial dangers inherent in the proposals and that the hoped for benefits in legitimate sales will not materialise as filesharers will simply switch to other undetectable methods to get content for free," said Andrew Heaney, Talk Talk executive director of strategy and regulation.
The telecom company O2 considers that laws are not the right solution to the problem and suggested that media companies should look for new mechanisms to deliver paid content at a cheaper price.
The subject of the bill was largely discussed on 19 April 2010, during an online audio debate presented by the Guardian and campaign group 38 Degrees, between the three main UK political parties on the most important hot topics, as voted for by the people.
Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, on behalf of the Tories, agreed the Bill was rushed through and emphasised the absence of a proper House of Commons scrutiny stage. Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrats' chief of staff said: "We pushed to strike out the provisions on piracy and those that let Internet users be cut off. We'd want to repeal that."
And the climate change secretary Ed Miliband from the labour party, which was actually the key instigator of the bill, tried to avoid taking responsibility and kept repeating the need for a balance between Internet freedoms and a fair retribution for music, video and software creation.
So, although they had earlier voted for the bill, it seems that now, in the electoral campaign, none of the major parties really want to deal with it.
What we do next (8.04.2010)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org:80/blog/2010/what-we-do-next
DE Bill rammed through UK Parliament in 2 hours (8.04.2010)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&am...
Digital economy bill rushed through wash-up in late night session
(8.04.2010)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/08/digital-economy-bill-...
The Digital Economy Act has nothing to do with UK politicians (19.04.2010)
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1601752/the-digital-econom...
Digital Economy Bill is passed into law (9.04.2010)
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1600463/digital-economy-bi...
Lib Dems will call for repeal of Digital Economy Act (16.04.2010)
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/lib-dems-will-call-for-rep...
EDRi-gram: UK Digital Economy Bill rushed through the House of Commons
(7.04.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.7/uk-digital-economy-bill-rushed-...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Niederländische ARGE Urheberrecht lässt Deep Packet Inspection falle...
Last year, a Dutch parliamentary working group on copyright published a heavily contested report on the future of copyright. It advised rendering the downloading of copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder illegal. The working group also suggested to use deep packet inspection (DPI) technology to enforce this prohibition. DPI-technology allows the surveillance of the content layers of the Internet by third parties.
The Dutch digital rights organisation Bits of Freedom fiercely criticized the report, particularly the statement on the possible use of DPI to enforce a downloading ban. The working group has responded to this criticism. During a parliamentary discussion on 14 April 2010, the chairwoman of the working group publicly promised to remove the controversial statement on DPI from the report, and to soon publish a cleaned up version.
Downloading copyrighted content is currently legal in the Netherlands, as long as it falls within the private copyright exception of the Dutch Copyright Act.
Report on the future of copyright (only in Dutch, 2009)
http://www.tweedekamer.nl/images/Herdruk_rapport_auteursrecht_118-1910...
Report by Bits of Freedom (only in Dutch, 14.12.2009)
https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/filesharing-kamerbr...
Video of parliamentary discussion on the report (only in Dutch, 14.04.2010)
https://www.bof.nl/2010/04/14/auteursrechtdebat-online-iets-opvallend/
(Contribution by David Korteweg - EDRi-member Bits of Freedom - Netherlands)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Deutsche Zivilgesellschaft fordert endgültigen Stopp der Vorratsdaten...
More than 40 organisations and associations have sent a letter asking the German Federal Minister of Justice to "push for the abolition of EU telecommunications data retention requirements" which compel phone and Internet companies to collect data about their customers' communications. According to the letter, data retention puts confidential activity and contacts (for example journalists, crisis lines and business partners) at risk of disclosure by way of data leaks and abuses. It is expensive and damages the freedom of communication.
Among the 48 signatories of the letter there are German civil liberties, data protection and human rights associations as well as crisis line and emergency call operators, professional associations of journalists, jurists and doctors, major trade unions, the Federation of German Consumer Organisations and the eco Association of the German Internet Industry.
On 2 March 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled the German data retention provisions unconstitutional and void, following complaints from over 34 000 German citizens. However, a 2006 EU directive compels member states to implement a data retention regime. The European Commission is currently reviewing this directive. The German Federal Minister of Justice, a member of the liberal party, has yet to call for an end to the EU-wide compulsion to collect communications data.
"The EU-wide requirement to retain the entire population's communications data, introduced in 2005, is outdated", comments Patrick Breyer of theGerman Working Group on Data Retention. "Blanket data retention has proven to be superfluous, harmful and unconstitutional in many states across Europe, such as Germany, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Romania and Sweden. These states prosecute crime just as effectively using targeted instruments, such as the internationally agreed Convention on Cybercrime. Where data retention has been implemented, the crime clearance rate has not increased. For example in North Rhine-Westphalia, the most populated state of Germany, 85% of all reported Internet crime was cleared in 2007 before the introduction of data retention legislation, but only 77% was cleared in 2008 and in 2009 after the implementation of data retention. The EU regulations must now be made more flexible to allow for alternative procedures that work more intelligently than an untargeted stockpiling of data."
"About 70% of all Germans are opposed to a recording of their contacts and location in the absence of any suspicion", says Florian Altherr of the Working Group. "They want to be sure that their private and business contacts to marital crisis lines, lawyers, journalists and others cannot fall into the wrong hands or erroneously make them a suspect in the eyes of law enforcement authorities. The countless number of data scandals such as the systematic abuse of communications data at Deutsche Telekom have taught us that only erased data is safe data."
Translation of the letter to the Federal Minister of Justice (19.04.2010)
http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/362/79/lang,en/
The German Federal Constitutional Court's judgement on data retention
http://www.bverfg.de/en/press/bvg10-011en.html
The Commission's draft evaluation report
http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/RoomDocumentEvaluationDir...
Position of the German government (only in German, 30.09.2009)
http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/DR-consult/de_ms_de.pdf
Response by the German Working Group on Data retention (13.11.2009)
http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/reply_commission_data-ret...
Crime clearance rate in 2009 (only in German)
http://www.polizei-nrw.de/lka/stepone/data/downloads/6a/01/00/pks-jahr...
Poll on data retention (only in German, 25.01.2010)
http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/images/infas-umfrage.pdf
(Press release of the German Working Group on Data Retention)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Transfer von EU-Bankdaten auf Agenda der EU-Institutionen
The airline problems in Europe that have affected also many MEPs, have postponed a series of voting sessions scheduled for this week in Strasbourg, including the votes on PNR and SWIFT resolutions.
The US Administration declared that it hoped to continue "realistic" negotiations with the EU for a new bank data transfer deal with the EU, allowing American investigators to track terrorism funding. In February 2010, the European Parliament voted to block US access to banking data on European citizens from SWIFT, especially due to privacy concerns.
There were fears that the US might give up any negotiations with EU in the matter, trying to settle individual agreements with Belgium and the Netherlands, where the databases are located. However, the US administration decided to continue to negotiate with EU.
At the meeting that might take place in Luxembourg during 22-23 April 2010, EU justice ministers could give green light to the European Commission to start talks with the American side. However, concerns will probably be raised by some countries such as Germany, Greece, Austria and Hungary which have already expressed reservation to some issues, as they were also unhappy when the provisional deal concluded in 2009. But the delay of the EP vote on this may lead to postponing the Council vote.
MEPs are to express their opinion on the guiding principles for the negotiations, emphasizing the need to limit the quantity of data transferred but, for the time being, SWIFT has no technical possibility to extract certain data on a bank client. It seems that the US would not oppose a restriction of the categories of data received by them.
A hearing has been recently organised by The Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament on the issue of data sharing with the US.
A detailed overview of the legal situation in the matter was provided by Paul de Hert from the Free University of Brussels. Despina Vassiliadou from the European Commission explained the necessity of an over-arching binding framework for data sharing due to differing agreements on PNR or SWIFT. For this purpose a "high-level contact group" had already been set up in order to establish the most effective way forward.
Peter Hustinx made an analysis of what would be needed from any such agreement, including the necessity of adequate safeguards for all data processing and the creation of strong oversight mechanisms and judicial remedies for its infringement.
Edward Hasbrouck from the Identity Project emphasized the fact that passenger records are globally shared through US-based air customer databases and, as a result, the question of formal PNR transfers only covers a small part of the ways in which passenger data are shared around the world. He argued that Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights should be part of any final agreement with the USA.
Patrick Breyer from AK-Vorrat explained that the ECHR jurisprudence limits the rights of countries to cooperate with states which do not provide an adequate level of protection and considered that the cooperation should be on a case by case basis, with the respect of human rights, and that the agreement should not be a justification on its own for data transfer.
In a discussion in the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament, MEP Sophie In't Veld said she had found out that filtering of the financial messaging data was possible and she believed the filtering should happen in the EU and should apply to any kind of data transfer.
In the same meeting a representative of the European Commission announced that the EC would shortly be releasing a report on the second closed-door EC-DHS joint review of DHS compliance with the current PNR agreement. As the US organisation Papers, Please! explaines, the two reports (December 2008 and February 2010) issued so far by DHS on its own self-assessment and claims of compliance "are seriously misleading and contain significant legal and factual misstatements."
"Their inaccuracy makes clear that DHS claims cannot be relied on without independent verification. The willingness of the DHS to publish such false claims calls into question the good faith of DHS participation in the joint review, and reinforces the need for a truly independent review including an audit of DHS actions by technical experts with access to legal process to compel full access to DHS records." concludes the detailed analysis made by Papers, Please!
US wants 'realistic' talks on EU bank data transfers (15.04.2010)
http://euobserver.com:80/9/29870/?rk=1
Testimony to Members of the European Parliament (8.04.2010)
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001855.html
Public Hearing: Protection of Personal Data in Transatlantic Security
Cooperation (1.04.2010)
http://janalbrecht.eu/2010/04/01/public-hearing-protection-of-personal...
Member states urged to postpone decision on Swift (20.04.2010)
http://www.theparliament.com/no_cache/latestnews/news-article/newsarti...
DHS "update" still misstates compliance with EU agreement on PNR data
(18.04.2010)
http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/04/18/dhs-update-still-misstates-c...
DHS: Update on the PNR review report (5.02.2010)
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pnr_review2010updat...
EDRi-gram: European Parliament needs to reject the SWIFT deal (10.02.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.3/european-parliament-to-discuss-...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: (D') Evolution Summit 2010 und die Granada Deklaration
On 31 March 2010, on the eve of the Easter break, the summit of the Ministers of Culture from the 27 European Union countries, and their meeting with the Forum of Cultural Industries, came to an end in Barcelona. The parallel citizen summit, the (D') Evolution Summit - which was organized in order to put forward specific proposals and urgent demands on fundamental rights on the Internet, and to give a real-time account of what was being said inside the official congress - allowed civil society to keep an eye on what was being said about its future.
Here are some details which, as we will see below, are "representative":
More than 5000 people were able to connect to the live internet broadcast, and 700 social networks worked spontaneously to ensure that the information circulated immediately. Tens of thousands of blogs helped to spread (D') Evolution.
The fictional character the Tracks Collector, an artist who tries to collect his legitimate royalties generated by works licensed under Creative Commons, which the cultural industries do not want to pay him, attracted more than 1000 fans in a single day.
The (D') Evolution action with Leo Bassi entiteled "No pagaremos el pato/We will not carry the can" for a cultural industry that does not want to reinvent itself was the lead image in all the papers.
Every day, half an hour after the end of each session at the Forum on Cultural Industries, we broadcast the edited highlights with live commentary. The edit showing Eduard Punset directly addressing the Spanish Minister Ángeles González Sinde, which was posted online with the title La Lección de Punset/Punset's Lesson had 90 000 visits in the first two days, making it one of the 5 most-watched videos on the net. It has now exceeded 150 000 visits.
A second meeting of the civil society was related to the Granada meeting between 18 and 20 April of the Ministers of Telecommunications and Information Society of the European Union. Even though the most part of the Ministers could not arrive due to the airlines problems in Europe and participated via videoconference, the Granada Ministerial Declaration on the European Digital Agenda was agreed on 19 April 2010.
The declaration expressed support to "safeguard the openness of the internet" and as regards IPRs wants to "actively promote the development of European digital content markets through practical solutions to promote new business models and concrete measures to reduce market fragmentation for the reuse and access to digital content, while protecting and assuring the fair remuneration of rights holders. "
The Granada declaration also includes the headline "Digital User Rights" which are related to the promotion of "awareness of current EU rules protecting users of electronic communications and online services" and to the reinforcement of "data protection and privacy for users of social networking services and in key fields such as online health and e-government services."
Granada Ministerial Declaration on the European Digital Agenda: Agreed on 19
April 2010
http://ue2010.net/export/sites/presidencia/comun/descargas/Ministerios...
Europa aprueba la Declaración de Granada para la nueva Agenda Digital (only
in Spanish, 19.04.2010)
http://www.mityc.es/es-ES/GabinetePrensa/NotasPrensa/2010/Paginas/npre...
Full report from the (D') Evolution Summit - THE END OF IMPUNITY,
Ministerial Summits are not what they used to be -Videos, images, events and
press clippings
http://d-evolution.fcforum.net/en/
Internet will not be another TV
http://internetnoseraotratv.net/en
(Thanks to organizers of (D') Evolution Summit)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Italienischer Minister als File-Sharer
The Italian Minister of Internal Affairs Roberto Maroni has recently expressed his disapproval of three-striles solutions for file-sharers and admitted he was one of the people that downloaded music from the Internet, free of charge. He had already made a similar statement in 2006.
Maroni, a musician himself, confesed to Panorama magazine that he was doing this as "a provocation, because I believe that the solution is not the French one to cut the Internet connection of those illegally downloading music. The solution is to create a site where the youth may download music for which the copyrights are guaranteed by one or more sponsors".
The minister believes the French three-strikes sistem is a disproportionate measure which does not function. In his opinion, since the Hadopi law was adopted in France, the amount of illegal downloading has increased. He believes that downloading music for free is not a crime and people should be able to do it. He insisted that getting music by this method was not like stealing from the supermarket as the music industry had suggested. What people are doing is getting a copy of what someone else has placed on a network.
"It is as if the owner of this computer where I'm going to take the music from did a copy of a CD he bought and gave it to me, something that normally happens when we buy a CD and make copies for our friends," he stated.
Obviously, FIMI, the Italian branch of the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry), reacted to Maroni's statements: "A few million music tracks legally downloaded for free, over a billion click-free videos on Youtube by officers of Italian artists, more than 90% of individual files sold at less than one euro from dozens of platforms. The Minister should consider the risk to jobs and loss of revenues to the state because of digital piracy," stated FIMI.
Maroni's position comes following a document recently issued by AGCOM, the Italian Communications Regulatory Authority, which clearly reveals that illegal downloading does not produce the economic damage claimed by the music industry. Moreover, the paper shows that political repression and surveillance are anti-constitutional, unnecessary and harmful. The authority suggests there should be a balance between the remuneration of authors and the people's right to culture and knowledge and advocates for an extended collective licensing.
AGCOM offers some solutions and believes that a dialogue with the market should be started in order to promote a culture of access to legal digital content, to find business models that would ensure fair remuneration for all industry players as well as access to the widest possible content for users. Appropriate measures should be found to prevent and combat illegal actions. The measures applied presently are inconsistent with the law related to privacy, right of access to the Internet and the principle of net neutrality.
Maroni, the minister is a pirate (only in Italian, 9.04.2010)
http://punto-informatico.it:80/2852520/PI/News/maroni-ministro-un-pira...
And Maroni downloads music from the web (only in Italian, 9.04.2010)
http://www.ilgiornale.it/interni/e_maroni_scarica_musica_web/09-04-201...
Maroni: Downloading mp3 is not a crime (only in Italian, 10.04.2010)
http://www.lastampa.it/_web/cmstp/tmplrubriche/tecnologia/grubrica.asp...
AGCOM report on "piracy": better to legalize than repress (only in Italian,
16.02.2010)
http://blog.tntvillage.scambioetico.org/?p=5359
IFPI Upset As Italian Minister Admits He's A File-Sharer (13.04.2010)
http://torrentfreak.com/ifpi-upset-as-italian-minister-admits-hes-a-fi...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Asociación de Internautas wendet sich wegen Gerichtsurteil an Europä...
Asociación de Internautas (the Spanish Association of Internet Users - AI) has recently denounced to the European Commission (EC) the Spanish Supreme Court decision in the case introduced by SGAE (the General Society of Authors and Editors) in March 2004.
In its ruling at the end of December 2009, the Supreme Court decided against AI and later on ordered the association to remove the website "putasgae.org" and pay SGAE damages for user generated content that insulted SGAE and other persons and entities.
The association considers that the sentence has ignored the Spanish as well as the European jurisprudence on the provision of Internet services, as it was found responsible for content placed by third parties. "It is as if when a letter with insults and threats was sent, the Post office were responsible for carrying the letter and not those who wrote it" says the denounce.
AI also argues it had no previous control over contents especially as this would be contrary to the Spanish and European norms at least until there is a notification of an illicit activity and that it lacked effective knowledge of the illicit content. According to the Spanish Act 34 that implements the European E-commerce Directive 2000/31/EC, a judicial order is required to prove the existence of effective knowledge.
Furthermore, AI stated that it had blocked the access to the respective content when notified by the existence of a complaint.
The association draws the attention on the dangerous precedent created by this decision which could bring sanctions for other web sites and even other communication means because any "information could be now denounced by anybody".
In the meantime, a campaign was initiated by Internet users in order to gather money to support AI to pay the fine. According to Víctor Domingo, AI President, the amount of 25 500 euro has already been gathered.
PUTASGAE case: We are going to Europe! (only in Spanish, 8.04.2010)
http://www.internautas.org:80/html/6093.html
Asociación de Internautas takes Putasgae case to Europe (only in Spanish,
8.04.2010)
http://www.libertaddigital.com/internet/la-asociacion-de-internautas-l...
Supreme Court ruling against owners of defamatory website (13.04.2010)
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dd847cb4-5e68-4c3b-97fd-...
EDRi-gram: Spain: NGO fined by the Supreme Court for hosting offensive
contents (13.01.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.1/putasgae-case-spain
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Italienisches Urteil hinsichtlich Googles Führungskräfte...
Finally, the Court of Milan made public the opinion that backed the indictment of a couple of Google's executives charged of Italian Data Protection Act infringement for not removing a violent video from the company's video sharing platform, video.google.com. The opinion of the Court tells basically what I "guessed" in a previous article, while analyzing the charges against the managers.
Thus, to put it short, Google's people have been indicted because they failed to verify, under the Italian Data Protection Act, whether all of the people depicted in the video positively consented to its upload. It did not matter that the service agreement binded the user to publish legally obtained content only.
As I've written and told in serveral places, this is a wrong decision.
Wrong from the legal perspective, for it sets on ISP's side a hidden duty of pre-emptive control over users' activity.
Wrong from the social perspective, for it breaks the tie between a crime and its "author" and reinforces the idea of "faida" (the collateral vendetta of the ancient barbarians.)
Court decision (only in Italian, 24.02.2010)
http://speciali.espresso.repubblica.it//pdf/Motivazioni_sentenza_Googl...
Google's executives indictment in Italy. Here are the reason's why
(13.04.2010)
http://blog.andreamonti.eu/?p=245
Google convictions reveal two flaws in EU law, not just Italian law
(3.03.2010)
http://www.out-law.com/page-10805
EDRi-gram: First decision in the Italian criminal case against Google
executives (24.02.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.4/decision-italy-vs-google-execut...
(contribution by Andrea Monti - EDRi-member ALCEI Italy)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
La Quadrature du Net - ACTA: Signature collection for Written Declaration 12
continues
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-signature-collection-for-wd12-cont...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
European Cybercriminals Association open letter on Internet blocking http://www.cybercriminalsociety.eu/
Flying 2.0? ENISA launches study on future challenges of Internet of
Things/RFID in air travel (13.04.2010)
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/press-releases/flying-2.0-study-of-in...
E-waste and data protection: EDPS warns against security risks and calls for
"privacy by design" (14.04.2010)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/...
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/...
The Europeana Public Domain Charter
The Europeana Foundation has published a policy statement, the Public Domain
Charter, to highlight the value of public domain content in the knowledge
economy. It alerts Europe's museums, libraries, archives and audiovisual
collections to the fact that digitisation of Public Domain content does not
create new rights in it.
http://version1.europeana.eu/web/europeana-project/publications
Digital civil rights: From Karlsruhe to Brussels (8.04.2010)
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-04-08-bendrath-en.html
The German Constitutional Court Judgement on Data retention: Goodbye
Unlimited Surveillance, Hello Proportionality (23.03.2010)
http://vortex.uvt.nl/TILTblog/?p=118
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
24 April 2010, London, United Kingdom
Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010
http://www.okfn.org/okcon/
29-30 April 2010, Madrid, Spain (and many hubs for remote participation)
EuroDIG 2010
http://www.eurodig.org/
6-7 May 2010, Krems, Austria
4th International Conference on eDemocracy 2010
http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/gpa/telematik/veranstaltungen...
22-24 May 2010 - Cologne, Germany
SIGINT 2010 - a conference for hackers, Internet residents and
activists, organized by Chaos Computer Club
http://events.ccc.de/sigint/2010/wiki/CFP
26-28 May 2010, Amsterdam, Netherlands
World Congress on Information Technology
http://www.wcit2010.com/
30-31 May 2010, Montreal, Canada
Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An
Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction
http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop
8-9 June 2010 - Funchal, Portugal
4th International Workshop on RFID Technology - Concepts, Applications,
Challenges - IWRT 2010
http://www.iceis.org/Workshops/iwrt/iwrt2010-cfp.htm.
25-27 June 2010, Cluj, Romania
Networking Democracy?
New Media Innovations in Participatory Politics
http://www.brisc.info/NetDem/
28-30 June 2010, Torino, Italy
COMMUNIA 2010 Conference: University and Cyberspace
Reshaping Knowledge Institutions for the Networked Age
http://www.universities-and-cyberspace.org
9-11 July 2010, Gdansk, Poland
Wikimedia 2010 - the 6th annual Wikimedia Conference
http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
25-31 July 2010, Meissen, Germany
European Summer School on Internet Governance
Call open until 15 May 2010.
http://www.euro-ssig.eu
29-31 July 2010, Freiburg, Germany
IADIS - International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings 2010
http://www.ict-conf.org/
2-6 August 2010, Helsingborg, Sweden
Privacy and Identity Management for Life (PrimeLife/IFIP Summer School 2010)
CfP submission deadline: 2 May 2010
http://www.cs.kau.se/IFIP-summerschool/
13-17 September 2010, Crete, Greece
Privacy and Security in the Future Internet
3rd Network and Information Security (NIS'10) Summer School
http://www.nis-summer-school.eu
28-31 October 2010, Barcelona, Spain
oXcars and Free Culture Forum 2010, the biggest free culture event of all
time
3-5 November 2010, Barcelona, Spain
The Fifth International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues in
IT Law. Call for papers deadline: 10 September 2010
http://www.lspi.net/