This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Zwei Digitale Agenden, aber eine Europäische Union
The European Parliament (EP) passed on 6 May 2010, with a large majority, a resolution adopting the report on a new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu by MEP Pilar del Castillo Vera. The report outlines the Internet policy for the next five years and beyond.
Two weeks later, on 19 May 2010, the European Commission made public its Digital Agenda for Europe - an action plan that "would contribute significantly to the EU's economic growth and spread the benefits of the digital era to all sections of society."
The EP report asks that a European Charter of citizens' and consumers' rights in the digital environment, consolidating data privacy and protection against cybercrime with special protection of minors and young adults, should be implemented by 2012 and that the Cybercrime Convention should be ratified by 2015. "Preserving 'a fair balance between the right-holders' rights and the general public's access to content and knowledge' is also crucial" says the report. The Charter should consolidate the Community acquis including, in particular, users' rights relating to the protection of privacy, vulnerable users and digital content as well as guaranteeing adequate interoperability performance. The protection of privacy constitutes a core value and all users should have control of their personal data, including the "right to be forgotten." By this report, the MEPs reaffirm that rights in the digital environment should be considered within the overall framework of fundamental rights.
"Citizens should be made aware of the privacy impact of their behaviour in an online context, and should be afforded the right to require the removal of personal data even when the data was initially collected with the consent of the data subject," also says the report which consider that the "fight against cybercrime is another significant challenge. The effective enforcement of EU legislation in this field is often obstructed by cross-border legal issues, such as competent jurisdiction or applicable law."
The Commission's Digital Agenda also talks about the need of increased cooperation between the different government entities for tracking down criminal organizations. Even though a lot of rumours have indicated the presence of child pornography blocking issues in the Agenda, the final text dilutes the message, but keeps the text "preventing viewing", which may lead to dangerous interpretations for digital human rights: "For instance, to tackle sexual exploitation and child pornography, alert platforms can be put in place at national and EU levels, alongside measures to remove and prevent viewing of harmful content."
EP calls on the Commission, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications and the National Regulatory Authorities to promote the "net neutrality" provisions, to monitor its implementation closely and to report to the European Parliament before the end of 2010. It also considers that EU legislation should preserve the "mere conduit" provision established in the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) as a crucial way of enabling free and open competition on the digital market.
The Commission is announcing a public debate in the summer of 2010 on net neutrality, while it "will also monitor closely the implementation of the new legislative provisions on the open and neutral character of the internet."
The report emphasises the need to develop a "Fifth Freedom" that enables the free circulation of content and knowledge and to achieve, by 2015, a convergent, consumer-friendly legal framework for accessing digital content in Europe, which would improve certainty for consumers and achieve a fair balance between the right-holders' rights and the general public's access to content and knowledge. MEPs consider that sanctions, as possible tools in the field of copyright enforcement, should be targeted at commercial exploiters before individual citizens, as a point of principle.
On the other hand the European Commission is leaving its conservationist position and is no longer talking of a further enforcement of copyright online, making this "a first timid step, that it might pave the way to a reasonable and balanced evolution of copyright in the EU if it leads to a truly open debate on the question, and creates the conditions for a possible policy-shift", as La Quadrature de Net interprets it.
However the Commission's Digital Agenda has omitted using the term "open standards", that had been present in previous versions. "While it includes some important building blocks for Free Software, the omission of Open Standards rips a gaping hole in this agenda," explains Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe.
The EP report has in view high-speed broadband Internet access and digital skills for everybody, including disadvantaged population groups and people living in rural and remote regions, at a competitive price. MEPs believe 50% of EU households should be connected to very high-speed networks by 2015 and 100% by 2020 and "all primary and secondary schools must have reliable, quality Internet connections by 2013 and very high-speed Internet connections by 2015". Moreover, in addition, "ICT training and e-learning should become an integral part of lifelong learning activities, enabling better and accessible education and training programmes". MEPs also want 75% of mobile subscribers to be 3G users by 2015.
The EC's plans are establishing the 2020 target for the "internet speeds of 30 Mbps or above for all European citizens, with half European households subscribing to connections of 100Mbps or higher."
Europe's digital revolution by 2015.eu (5.05.2010)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/008-73866-120-04-...
Digital Agenda: Commission outlines action plan to boost Europe's prosperity
and well-being (19.05.2010)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/581&...
A new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu (5.05.2010)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7...
Communication from the Commission: A Digital Agenda for Europe (19.05.2010)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digit...
EU Parliament calls for data rights charter (07.05.2010)
http://www.out-law.com:80/page-11002
Digital Agenda: Caution required for the future EU Net policies (Press
Release) (19.05.2010)
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/digital-agenda-caution-required-for-the...
Lack of Open Standards "gaping hole" in EC's Digital Agenda (19.05.2010)
http://fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20100519-01.en.html
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Irisches Gericht lässt Vorratsdatenspeicherung vom EuGH prüfen
Recently, the Irish High Court ruled in favour of EDRi-member Digital Rights Ireland (DRI) allowing the civil liberties campaign group to challenge the EU Data Retention Directive at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This is the result of four years of work by the legal team of the group.
In its action introduced in 2008 against the Ministers for Communications and Justice, the Garda Commissioner and the State, DRI claimed the defendants had illegally processed and stored data related to DRI and other mobile phone users contrary to Irish and European law. Also involved in the case was the Human Rights Commission (HRC) as adviser to the court on legal matters.
DRI claimed the European data retention directive was in breach of fundamental rights under the EU treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Irish court ruled that, in this matter, a reference to the ECJ was required and appropriate at the current stage of the proceedings.
Justice McKechnie noted that "the matters pleaded in this case do raise issues of significant public importance. Given the rapid advance of current technology it is of great importance to define the legitimate legal limits of modern surveillance techniques used by governments. Without sufficient legal safeguards the potential for abuse and unwaranted invasion of privacy is obvious. That is not to say that this is the case here, but the potential is in my opinion so great that a greater scrutiny of the proposed legislation is certainly merited," and decided that Digital Rights Ireland had the right to contest whether the provisions of the data retention directive "violate citizen's rights to privacy and communications".
Ireland is thus following other European countries that have lately questioned the constitutionality of the European directive, such as Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania.
The decision of the Irish High Court gives ECJ the opportunity to decide whether the Data retention Directive is lawful or not. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights related the right to privacy will probably be the base of the challenge. The answer of the ECJ on the matter will very much depend on the questions prepared by the Irish Court. DRI had suggested a form of questions to be submitted in its Statement of Claim but the High Court needed more suggestions. The questions are part of the Order of the Court making the reference to the ECJ that should be received by every EU Member State.
"To avoid a defeat before the European Court of Justice the European Commission must propose swift amendments to the unconstitutional data retention directive. The EU-wide compulsion to collect communications data is outdated and must be repealed. Blanket data retention has proven to be superfluous, harmful or unconstitutional in many states across Europe and the world, such as Germany, Austria, Belgium, Greece, Romania, Sweden and Canada. These states prosecute crime just as effectively using targeted instruments, such as the internationally agreed Convention on Cybercrime," stated Sandra Mamitzsch of the German Working Group on Data Retention.
The High Court will determine in about. 3 weeks the precise text of the questions to be referred to the ECJ. Once this is done the case is formally referred and it will probably take about two years to get a hearing in the ECJ. Every Member State of the EU has a right to intervene and be heard in the matter.
Data Retention Challenge: Judgement re Preliminary Reference, Standing,
Security for Costs - High Court decision (5.05.2010)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30950035/Data-Retention-Challenge-Judgment-r...
High Court decision on our data retention challenge (5.05.2010)
http://www.digitalrights.ie:80/2010/05/05/high-court-decision-on-our-d...
European court to rule on data storage law (6.05.2010)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0506/1224269793253.ht...
Digital Rights Ireland Data Retention Case (10.05.2010)
http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie:80/2010/05/10/digital-rights-ireland-da...
Digital Rights Ireland no longer a voice in the wilderness (6.05.2010)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0506/1224269793309.ht...
EDRi-gram: Digital Rights Ireland Challenge to Data Retention (2.08.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.15/drireland
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Industrie schlägt einen Rahmen zur Bewertung der Auswirkungen von RFI...
Following the RFID recommendation issued by the European Commission on 12.05.2009, an informal working group on the implementation on the recommendation was set up, especially focusing on the task of creating a RFID Privacy Impact Assessment Framework. Members of the group were mainly industry representatives, some representatives of European standardisation organisations and a very limited number of civil society representatives - EDRi amongst them. While the status of the group was strictly informal, its meetings were facilitated and organised by the European Commission.
As suggested in the RFID recommendation the drafting of the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) Framework was carried out by the industry. Other stakeholders had the opportunity to comment on the respective current draft version after three of the five meetings that took place in the course of one year.
Following the RFID recommendation, the final industry proposal was submitted for endorsement to the Article 29 Working Party on 31.03.2010. Almost one month later, on 26.04.2010 - one day before it was published on the website of the European Commission - the members of the informal working group also received a copy of this final proposal from industry representatives.
Compared to the last known draft version the final proposal incorporates a number of significant changes. EDRi therefore still needs to analyse the final proposal in detail in order to gain a complete picture and to develop a final opinion on the framework.
What can be said so far is that EDRi's recommendation to base the PIA Framework on an structured analytical approach as commonly used in IT risk assessment (e.g. as provided by the German IT-Grundschutz Catalogues or the EuroPriSe Criteria Catalogue) was not considered to be a suitable approach for this Framework.
While the text of the framework states that "a PIA is a practical privacy and data protection risk tool" (page 3) helping the RFID Application Operator "to manage risks to its organisation and to users" (page 4), it apparently fails to identify a single specific risk and suitable counter-measures but rather concentrates on a general description of a potential PIA process and the potential structure of PIA reports.
Analyse will show if the framework provides sufficient guidance for "RFID Operators, regardless of their size and sector" (page 3) to properly analyse the privacy and data protection risks associated with the use of RFID technology and to answer these risks effectively.
According to the process defined in the Commission's RFID recommendation, it is now on the Article 29 Working Party to respond to the Industry proposal, either by endorsement or otherwise. EDRi will continue to work on privacy and data protection in the area of RFID and the Internet of Things and to contribute at European and national levels to the creation of a privacy-friendly information infrastructure.
The Industry Proposal Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment Framework for RFID is publicly available on the website of the European Commission.
European Commission: Commission Recommendation on the implementation of
privacy and data protection principles in Applications supported by
radio-frequency identification (12.05.2009)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/documents/recommen...
Industry Proposal Privacy and Data Protection Impact Assessment Framework
for RFID Applications (31.03.2010)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/rfid/documents/d31031in...
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik: IT-Grundschutz
Catalogues
https://www.bsi.bund.de/cln_156/EN/Topics/ITGrundschutz/ITGrundschutzC...
European Privacy Seal: EuroPriSe Criteria
https://www.european-privacy-seal.eu/criteria/EuroPriSe%20Criteria%20C...
(contribution by Andreas Krisch - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Neue weißrussische Internetverordnungen verlangen verpflichtende Webr...
Based on a decree issued on 1 February 2010 by President Alyaksandr Lukashenka, Belarus Council of Ministers adopted five resolutions introducing new Internet regulations which require a compulsory registration of all web sites and the collection of personal data of Internet cafe users.
According to one of the resolutions, the registration is required for all Internet resources on the territory of the Republic of Belarus, irrespective of their commercial or non-commercial nature. Starting with 1 July 2010, legal entities and individual entrepreneurs are obliged to make the transition to the use of information networks, systems and resources of the national segment of the Internet, located on the territory of the Republic of Belarus.
Lawyer Lyudmila Chekin explained that, in terms of the resolutions, all Internet resources that are on the territory of Belarus must be registered as Internet Service Providers. It seems it is still not clear what specific provider the law will apply to: the hosting provider which provides virtual hosting, or only to the physical host. Providers will also need to record additional information (a statement in the State Register of information networks, systems and resources, including more than 30 points that cover not only the name, passport details and contact of the owners of the resource, but also a detailed description of the site, network (IP) resource addresses, domain names, registration number of the data centre, the type of hosting used by resource ports transport protocols and others.)
Moreover, besides the fact that all websites must register and that the registration will cost, they must also be hosted in Belarus which implicitly means that all foreign-based sites may be sanctioned, leading to the termination of their service provision. The decree leaves however room for interpretation. According to Chekin, a first possible interpretation could be that the requirements for the transition to the Belarusian hosting would only apply to residents or non-residents having a permanent establishment on the territory of Belarus. A second possible interpretation could be that the provision of Internet services on the territory of the Republic of Belarus by non-residents who do not have branches or representative offices in Belarus is completely prohibited.
Belarus New Internet Regulations (12.05.2010)
http://globalvoicesonline.org:80/2010/05/12/belarus-new-internet-regul...
Regulated enough? (only in Russian, 12.05.2010)
http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/bynet/93378/
EDRi-gram: Censorship in Belarusian Internet cafes (27.02.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.4/belarus
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Google: Wir haben über Street View Informationen von WLAN-Netzen gesa...
Google admitted that the previous information on the data they have gathered with their Street View service was wrong and this included "samples of payload data from open (i.e. non-password-protected) WiFi networks."
The information comes after several letters were sent to Google by the Data Protection Authorities on the information the company had gathered in their StreetView service. As reported in the previous EDRi-gram, the initial answer from Google posted on 27 April acknowledged that the Google's Street View cars gather information only in three categories: photos of the street, WiFi network information, and 3D building imagery.
However, a new answer published on 14 May 2010, confirmed that the initial information was incomplete and they also collected "payload data (information sent over the network)".
Google claims that this was done by mistake and the data was never used in any Google products. They have also indicated that only fragments of payload data were gathered because: the cars are on the move, someone would need to be using the network as a car passed by and the in-car WiFi equipment automatically changes channels roughly five times a second.
The blog post published by Alan Eustace, Senior VP, Engineering & Research announced that Google wanted to delete the data as soon as possible and that they had decided to stop collecting WiFi network data entirely with their Street View cars.
According to an update on 17 May 2010, following a request of the Irish Data Protection Authority, Google announced that the "all data identified as being from Ireland was deleted over the weekend in the presence of an independent third party."
The decision was challenged also by an open letter of the Privacy International (PI) that considers the instruction to delete the date "is based on advice that is ill-informed and irresponsible, as the action may be unlawful. We urge Google to politely ignore these instructions and, instead, securely store the data with a trusted third party pending further investigation." PI has also announced that it will seek a prosecution for unlawful interception under the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, noting that "in those circumstances there would be no question of destroying the data."
This latest privacy issue can only support the arguments of the public letter sent some months ago by several privacy Commissioners from Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the UK. The letter called on Google to collect and process the minimum amount of personal information required for a service, to be clear about how it would be used and to ensure that privacy settings were default and easy to use.
As PI has recently replied to the public blog post: "This latest incident was not caused by a mistake; it was caused by a failure of process that cuts across the entire company. In the absence of a systemic change in product development and deployment procedures the latest incident will be just one in a continuing litany of transgressions on personal privacy."
Google said Street View cars had been collecting WiFi data in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United States.
The latest statements of Google chief Eric Schmidt tried to downplay the current privacy concerns over Google Street View Service. Mr Schmidt said at the company's annual Zeitgeist conference UK : "Who was harmed? Name the person", considering that it was "highly unlikely" that any of the collected information was "useful" and that there appeared to "have been no use of that data."
WiFi data collection: An update (14.05.2010)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.htm...
An open letter to EU privacy commissioners regarding deletion of Google WiFi
data (18.05.2010)
http://bit.ly/cb0p6S
Google chief Eric Schmidt downplays wi-fi privacy row (18.05.2010)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10122339.stm
Google and privacy: What crisis? (19.05.2010)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/05/google...
EDRi-gram: UK and Germany question the data collected by Google Street View
(5.05.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.9/google-street-view-wifi-germany...
Article corrected on 22.05.2010
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Deutscher Bundesgerichtshof: Geldstrafe für Besitzer von ungesicherte...
The Federal Supreme Court in Germany (Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)) has ruled in a case where an illegal download took place via an low-protected wireless Internet Access point, that the owner of the which should have secure it with a stronger password.
In this case, it was an intellectual property related issue with a musician asking for damages because a piece of music was illegally downloaded and later on made available via a file-sharing network.
But the owner of the WiFi network could prove that he was away on holiday and someone else used his wireless network, that was protected only by the password that was installed in the production.
BGH indicated that, in this case, he should have switched off or
sufficiently protect the network. Since this did not happen, he was
awarded a fine for negligence and the fine was set to a maximum of 100
Euros. (that is a default in cases of non-business activities) This ruling makes now clear that damages cannot be claimed in
Germany from a WiFi owner.
A similar case in Denmark in 2008 had a contrary decision. In that situation the women who allegedly infringed Intellectual property rights was the owner of an open wireless connection. She was not found guilty though because it was not clear if she was the person actually responsible for the infringement, or any other member of the family or a guest that used the open WiFi.
In UK, Professor Lilian Edwards of Sheffield University warned that according to the recent Digital Economy Bill, users might be responsible for other people's use of their networks to infringe copyright.
German court fines man who failed to secure his Wi-Fi network
http://www.out-law.com/page-11023
BGH restricts consequences of disturber liability for wireless operators
(12.05.2010)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BGH-schraenkt-Folgen-der-Stoere...
Danish WiFi Case - 2008 (only in Danish 5.09.2008)
http://www.itpol.dk/files/AabenTraadlosDom_0.pdf
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: EuGH: Generalanwältin will Beschränkungen bei Abgaben auf Privatkopi...
Verica Trstenjak, Advocate General at the EU Court of Justice, believes the levy on private copies imposed on digital equipment, devices and media should be limited to cases "where it may be presumed that they are to be used for private copying".
The European Directive on copyright and related rights in the information society gives reproduction rights for audio, visual and audio-visual material to authors, performers and producers, but lets the Member States allow private copying, provided there is a 'fair compensation' for rightholders.
Spain has decided to allow the reproduction for private use of works which have already been circulated, without the rightholders' permission and has provided for a lump-sum compensation by means of a levy to be paid by manufacturers, importers or retailers to intellectual property rights management societies on private copies, applied indiscriminately to digital reproduction equipment, devices and media. In Trstenjak's opinion, such a levy in favour of authors, artists and producers may not be applied indiscriminately to companies and professional persons who acquire equipment and data media for other purposes.
The question arose as SGAE, a Spanish collective society, sued PADAWAN, a company marketing electronic storage media such as CD-Rs, CD-RWs, DVD-Rs and MP3 players. SGAE claimed the payment of 16 760 euro as compensation for private copying related to the storage media marketed between September 2002 and September 2004 by the company. The appeal to the case was brought in front of the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona which had to consider whether the Spanish levy rule was compatible with the European directive and asked ECJ on how the "fair compensation" required by the directive should be organised. The decision of the Spanish court and therefore the output of SGAE case will depend on ECJ's answer.
According to the General Advocate, although the concept of "fair compensation" used in the directive should be interpreted uniformly in all the Member States, each Member State may determine the most appropriate criteria for ensuring compliance with the directive concept. Irrespective of the system used by each Member State in calculating fair compensation, there is the obligation to ensure a fair balance between the rightholders affected by the private copying exception, and the persons directly or indirectly liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, in her opinion, when a Member State, such as Spain, chooses a levy on digital reproduction equipment, devices and media, there should be the presumption that the respective equipment, devices and media are to be used for making private copies and not for other purposes.
Although the Court of Justice may be influenced by the Advocate General's Opinion, this has however no binding force as the role of the Advocates General is to independently propose to the Court a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible.
Court of Justice of the European Union - Press release no 45/10 on SGAE case
(11.05.2010)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/cp1000...
Opinion of Advocat General Trstenjak on SGAE case (11.05.2010)
http://curia.europa.eu:80/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=re...
Advocate-general limits application of private copying levy (11.05.2010)
http://www.europolitics.info/advocate-general-limits-application-of-pr...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Facebook unter Druck: Datenschutzrichtlinien werden nicht eingehalten
Macedonian: Фејсбук под притисок поради непочитув...
The recent changes of Facebook's privacy settings have attracted a lot of negative comments from regular users, but also from Data Protection authorities and NGOs.
In a public letter, the Article 29 Working Party, the group of European data protection authorities, has bluntly accused Facebook for its data protection practices, calling "unacceptable that the company fundamentally changed the default settings on its social-networking platform to the detriment of a user."
The 75th plenary session of the Working Party has also addressed letters to the 20 social network operators that have signed the "Safer Networking Principles for the EU " asking them for a "a default setting in which access to the profile information and information about the connections of a user is limited to self-selected contacts. Any further access, such as by search engines, should be an explicit choice of the user." The letters also included the issues of the third-party application providers of social network services and of third persons contained in users' profiles.
On a different level, Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), a coalition of U.S. and European consumer advocacy groups has adopted a new resolution criticizing the U.S. and European governments for failing to protect social network users from privacy and marketing abuses. "Social networks are like virtual homes for millions of people, but they are being invaded by data miners and marketers seeking to capitalize on information that users never intended to provide to strangers," said Susan Grant, co-chair of the TACD Information Society Policy Committee. The resolution calls for the U.S. and EU governments to prohibit social networks from targeting advertisements to children under 16 and to bar them from using online marketing practices that studies show can have a negative impact on individuals, particularly children - for instance, digital marketing of products that contribute to childhood obesity.
Facebook is trying to redeem its respect, by publicly answering questions posted to New York Times in relation with these new privacy concerns and even leaking some information that they are working again on "its privacy options".
But the current answers are flatly contradicting its own stated Principles on privacy, as EDRi-member Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explains: "Facebook wrote these Principles and designed them to not only reassure its users, but to give itself wiggle room for the future. It is a carefully drafted document, and Facebook has no excuse not to live up to the minimum standards it set out for itself. If Facebook wants to regain the trust of its users, following its own principles would be a good place to start."
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party: European data protection group faults Facebook for privacy setting change (12.05.2010) http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/news/docs/pr_12_05_10_en....
TACD: US/EU Consumer Advocates Demand Strong Rules to Protect Privacy and
Security of Social Network Users (05.2010)
http://tacd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=161&...
TACD: Resolution on Social Networking (05.2010)
http://tacd.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid...
Facebook Executive Answers Reader Questions (11.05.2010)
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/facebook-executive-answers-re...
Facebook Should Follow Its Own Principles (13.05.2010)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/facebook-should-follow
Updated: Facebook Further Reduces Your Control Over Personal Information
(19.04.2010)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-further-reduces-control-...
Facebook to simplify privacy settings in response to backlash (18.05.2010)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?&entry_id=638...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mazedonien: Neues Gesetz für elektronische Kommunikation verabschiede...
The amendments to the Law on electronic communications would allow the Ministry of Interior to play the "Big Brother" role, concluded the opposition parties during the debate on this bill that took place in the Assembly on 11 May 2010.
According to the allegations of the opposition party SDSM, not only the Ministry of Interior would eavesdrop on telephone conversations without any obstruction, but it would also be authorized to monitor the computers of all Macedonian citizens.
According to the opposition party New Democracy, these amendments are not prepared in accordance with the European standards and they are jeopardizing the privacy of all Macedonian citizens. This party argued that the current government, aside from adopting a law which is not harmonized with the European legislation is also strengthening the position of the Ministry of Interior, thus creating a police state.
On the other hand, Deputy Minister of Transport and Communications Goran Mihajlovski claims that the proposed amendments to the Law on electronic communications have been prepared in accordance with the latest report of the European Commission.
According to the Deputy Minister, the amendments clearly define the authorizations and responsibilities of relevant institutions, therefore enabling the further development of the competition, the liberalization of the electronic communications, the entry of new operators and the introduction of new services and affordable charges for the citizens.
"Brussels expects the government to submit the adopted Law on Electronic Communications. The Commission has not been consulted about the adopted amendments, and Brussels would comment once it receives the text of the bill" announced the Delegation of the European Commission in Skopje.
Assembly of Republic of Macedonia: Proposal for changing and amending
the Law on electronic communications (second reading) (only in Macedonian)
http://www.sobranie.mk/ext/materialdetails.aspx?Id=4055857c-81de-45b1-...
(contribution by EDRi-member Metamorphosis Foundation - Macedonia)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: GB: Abbau des Datenbankstaates
The new UK government's coalition agreement includes a list of measures in order "to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion."
This includes the following:
- The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the
next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
- Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental
permission.
- The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to
provide greater transparency.
- Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
- The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by
jury.
- The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
- The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
- Further regulation of CCTV.
- Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
- Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
The latter two points make a possible reference to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the reform or repeal of the Data Retention Directive implementation respectively.
The legal status of several state databases have been called into question in a 2009 comprehensive map of UK government databases called the "Database State" published by the liberal Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust
Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal (12.05.2010)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8677933.stm
Welcome to the former Big Brother House (17.05.2010)
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/welcome-to-the-former-big-bro...
EDRi-gram: Database state (25.03.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.6/reading
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Belgien: Erlangen Sie ihre Privatsphäre zurück!
Retaining telecommunications data, the new law on the Special Intelligence Methods, the use of passenger data from airlines by judicial authorities and the police, and the ubiquity of cameras are but a few examples of measures that violate our right to privacy.
The Liga voor Mensenrechten is deeply worried about the increasing number of violations of the right to privacy. In the past few years, many measures have been taken by the government under the guise of fighting terrorism and serious crime that threaten and erode the privacy of citizens. This is unacceptable and in violation of the international and national privacy laws. The right to privacy is a fundamental human right that can only be limited in case that is absolutely necessary. These days, the proportionality and subsidiarity principles have however all but disappeared from the radar.
The Liga helps you win back your right to privacy! Citizens have largely lost their right to privacy, but the Liga voor Mensenrechten offers people the chance to fight back and regain their privacy. The fight starts in Gent on 18 May 2010 where the privacy campaign will be launched, and will finish with a grand closing event on 17 November 2010.
During the coming six months, the Liga will organise numerous activities, a.o., guided privacy walks, events in the streets, theoretical classes, camera spotting, a city game and - as closing event - handing out the Big Brother Awards on 17 November in the Vooruit in Ghent, Belgium.
Campaign website
http://www.winuwprivacy.be
Nominees of the Belgium Big Brother Awards
http://www.winuwprivacy.be/kandidaten
(contribution by Jonas Maebe - Liga voor Mensenrechten - Belgium)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Nach wachsender Kritik versucht sich Malmström von Neztsp...
Over the last two weeks, Commissioner Malmström has made several determined efforts to distance herself from Internet blocking and related policies supported by her and her services.
In June of last year, DG Justice, Freedom and Security (which is now under Commissioner Malmström's responsibility) proposed Internet blocking as well as revoking of IP addresses and domain names. When the same policies were copied and pasted into a Council of Ministers document recently, Commissioner Malmström used her blog to present this as proof that that these proposals were not hers and, oddly, that it is too early for the Commission to fully understand what the Council meant when it put forward these ideas.
The Commissioner also tried to argue in a recent meeting of the Civil Liberties Committee meeting that blocking, which was launched by her services under her leadership, is not just her policy, but that of the Commission as a whole (which is, of course, true, due to the "collegial" nature of the institution). In order to encourage this impression she has been trying to persuade her Liberal colleague Neelie Kroes to add blocking to the Digital Agenda, even though it was not mentioned in any version up until shortly before publication. In the end, Commissioner Kroes chose not to include unequivocal support for blocking in the document - although probably because it would have been incongruous rather than due to any lack of support for her colleague.
One of the reasons for Commissioner Malmström's desire to distance herself from this measure may be the European Data Protection Supervisor's (EDPS) recent Opinion on the proposal. While being critical of the measure in general, as well as its possible implications, the EDPS made a point of condemning the lawless, privatised restrictions on freedom of communication that have been publicly supported by the Commissioner. In a criticism that goes far beyond Internet blocking and which has major implications for the "self-regulatory" approaches proposed by the Commission, which aim to push Internet Service Providers into proactive Internet police, he stressed "that a code of conduct or voluntary guidelines would not bring enough legal certainty".
While Commissioner Malmström is focusing on the symptom (websites containing illegal material), Commissioner Reding (who has responsibility for child rights) has taken the initiative to launch a dialogue with the United States authorities to ensure that the worst child abuse material is taken offline as soon as possible. Following the crackdown on such material in Russia after pressure from the EU, positive cooperation with the United States would be a major step forward in dealing with web-based abuse material.
In the European Parliament, this week will see the first meeting of the MEP responsible for the blocking dossier (Roberta Angelilli, EPP, Italy)(the "rapporteur", in Eurospeak) with the MEPs responsible for the dossier from each of the other political groups ("shadow rapporteurs"). The nature of these discussions will set the scene for the ultimate compromises that will be achieved by the Parliament when adopting the legislation.
Commissioner's blog (Swedish)
http://ceciliamalmstrom.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/hall-ordning-pa-ankla...
Commissioner's blog (machine translation - English)
http://bit.ly/aF25pr
Commission's June 2009 proposal
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/eu-com-stockholm-prog.pdf
Council Conclusions:
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/news-items/council-cyber-crime
EDPS Opinion on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and
of the Council on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of
children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA
(10.05.2010)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/...
US, EU against Internet child porn (10.04.2010)
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Health/Story/A1Story20100410-2...
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
Consultation: Green Paper on "Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries".
The objective of this consultation is to gather views on various issues
impacting the cultural and creative industries in Europe, from business
environment to the need to open up a common European space for culture, from
capacity building to skills development and promotion of European creators
on the world stage. The responses to the consultation will inform the
Commission and help it ensure that EU programmes and policies involving
cultural and creative industries are "fit for purpose".
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/doc2577_en.htm
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
Proportionality overrides Unlimited Surveillance
By Katja de Vries and Rocco Bellanova & Paul De Hert (18.05.2010)
http://www.ceps.eu/book/proportionality-overrides-unlimited-surveillan...
Fundamental Rights Agency: Data Protection in the European Union: the role
of National Data Protection Authorities (Strengthening the fundamental
rights architecture in the EU II) (07/05/2010 - May 2010)
http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_per...
Developing Countries Blast WHO Report On IP, Demand Credible Approach
(18.05.2010)
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/18/developing-countries-blast-w...
Council of Europe - Draft meeting report from the 28-29.01.2010 consultation
meeting on the protection of rights of broadcasting organisations
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/MC-S-NR/MC-S-NR%282010...
WIPO Broadcasting Study: Study on the socioeconomic dimension of the
unauthorized use of signals - Part II: Unauthorized access to broadcast
content - cause and effects: a global overview (10.05.2010)
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_20/sccr_20_2_rev.pdf
EFF: Web Browsers Leave 'Fingerprints' Behind as You Surf the Net
(17.05.2010)
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/05/13
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
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
Call for participation by 20 May 2010
http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
25-31 July 2010, Meissen, Germany
European Summer School on Internet Governance
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)
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
14-16 September 2010, Vilnius, Lithuania
Internet Governance Forum 2010
http://igf2010.lt/
8-9 October 2010, Berlin, Germany
The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference
Call for Papers - Abstract Deadline: 7 June 2010
http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/display/fcrc/Home
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/
17 November 2010, Gent, Belgium
Big Brother Awards 2010 Belgium
http://www.winuwprivacy.be/kandidaten