This article is also available in:
Deutsch: EU steht vor einer Flut von Gesetzesinitiativen in Sachen geistiges Ei...
In the course of the next few months, the European Commission will be launching a flood of intellectual property initiatives, some aiming at repression, some at restricting access to culture and some at feeding uncreative intermediaries.
Work is now underway on an "impact assessment" which will assess the various options available to address the problem of collective rights management. These are the bodies which collect royalties from anyone who uses music and have become a growing barrier to effective reform of European copyright. The problems in this policy area were starkly illustrated in Belgium recently, when a team of undercover reporters showed that the Belgian collecting society Sabam was collecting royalties for artists that did not actually exist. A legislative proposal is expected in June.
Another upcoming initiative is on digital libraries and orphan works. Orphan works, which are works for which the author is not readily identifiable, is an interesting phenomenon because copyright essentially serves to restrict access to culture as part of a strategy that ostensibly serves to protect culture. The likely result is an excessively complicated process of trying to identify authors (best suited to large corporations that can absorb the cost) before orphan works can be made available in digital libraries. It appears that the Commission is unwilling to require authors of digital works to embed identity information in their digital content, in apparent fear that this would be in breach of Article 5 of the Berne Convention of 1886.
The Commission is also working on several initiatives with the positive aim of reducing barriers to online content, including measures on country of origin licensing, pan-European licensing and a European database of copyright.
Separately, the Commission is working on a review of the IPR Enforcement Directive. Its Communication suggests measures such as a reduction in privacy protection for citizens, in order to increase respect for the "right to property". A concrete example of the Commission's intentions on this point is shown in its input to the European Court of Justice "Scarlet/Sabam" case where it argued that Internet providers should filter all peer-to-peer traffic, searching for what rightolders have a right to or what they claim to have a right to (paragraph 58 of the link below).
The Communication also suggests an explicit de-coupling of injunctions from ISP liability, which would expressly encourage injunctions for filtering/blocking of content, filtering of uploads and the imposition of monitoring obligations on Internet providers. However, there is still the small matter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights as well as data protection and free speech legislation standing in the way of the European Commission turning the European Internet into Minitel / Bildschirmtext.
BASTA TV Show on Sabam (only in Flemish)
http://www.een.be/programmas/basta/sabam-en-de-makro-artiesten
Scarlet/Sabam case (only in French)
http://www.mlex.com/itm/Attachments/2011-01-13_1B8G0W13A97M04RY/C70_10...
Minitel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
Bildschirmtext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildschirmtext
Commission Communication on IPR Enforcement
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0779:FI...
(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Vier Big Brother Awards für grobe Verstöße gegen den niederländisc...
The biggest Dutch privacy violations of 2010 have been awarded a Big Brother
Award on 9 March 2011 in Amsterdam. At the ceremonies, organized by
EDRi-member Bits of Freedom, an independent jury selected four 'lucky'
winners from twelve nominees: Dutch Security and Justice Minister Ivo
Opstelten, public transport organization Trans Link Systems, the Dutch
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and the application of Deep Packet
Inspection technology. Trans Link Systems also homed the Audience Award.
Bits of Freedom handed information security expert Rop Gonggrijp the
Winston, a positive lifetime achievement award, for his commitment to
protect privacy and freedom in the digital age.
The jury granted awards in four categories: 1. Individuals: Dutch Security and Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten wins the award for rewarding police forces that illegally retained number plate records ofdrivers, by introducing legislation to legalize the storage of number plates of all Dutch car drivers for four weeks.
2. Companies: Public transport organization Trans Link Systems is selected by the jury for rolling out their insecure public transport chip card and even considering it as a paying method in kiosks, in spite of loud privacy objections against the chip card across the Netherlands and it being hacked several times since 2005.
3. Government: the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment receives the award for a proposal to give authorities the power to conduct inspections in the private home of all social security records, without any suspicion of social security fraud.
4. Proposals: the application of Deep Packet Inspection would lead to a permanent wiretap on all internet traffic of every single Dutch citizen. Notwithstanding evident breach of communications secrecy, the Ministry of Security and Justice seriously considers the application of this intrusive technology.
An independent expert jury selected twelve nominees out of hundreds of submissions from the public and consequently picked the laureates. The jury consists of publicist Karin Spaink (chair), journalist and anchor for the popular TV-show Radar Antoinette Hertsenberg, professor of Media and Telecommunications Law Nico van Eijk, Computer Science researcher Melanie Rieback and journalist Bart de Koning.
The awards ceremonies also brought good news. Dutch information security specialist and privacy advocate Rop Gonggrijp received a lifetime achievement award for his commitment to privacy and freedom in the digital age. With the unique combination of unrivaled technological expertise and political drive, Mr. Gonggrijp has firmly set digital rights on the agenda and underscored its importance for more than twenty years. He exposed the insecurity of electronic voting in The Netherlands, and contributes to evolving research in India and Brazil. By doing so, Mr. Gonggrijp defends the privacy and freedom of over a billion people.
EDRi-member Bits of Freedom organizes the annual Big Brother Awards to attract public awareness for heavyweight privacy violations in The Netherlands. These winners are presented during awards ceremonies, which provide an annual overview of the state of privacy. The seventh edition of the Dutch Big Brother Awards is supported by: Pakhuis de Zwijger, the NLnet Foundation and designers Largetosti.
(Contribution by EDRi-member Bits of Freedom, Netherlands)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Türkei setzt beliebte Blogger-Plattform auf die Sperrliste
Although they lifted the ban against Google's YouTube at the end of 2010 and despite the strong criticism and pending cases at the European Court of Human Rights, Turkish authorities continue to block access to websites.
Recently, following the complaint of the satellite television provider Digiturk which owns the broadcast rights to Turkish Super League games, a court in the south-eastern province of Diyarbakir banned Goggle's blogging platform Blogger.
"This is a disproportionate response by the court and undoubtedly has a huge impact on all law-abiding citizens," said Yaman Akdeniz, cyber-rights activist and a law professor at Istanbul Bilgi University, who believes that the Turkish court's decision will affect millions of Turkish bloggers and blog readers. "(I understand) there is a legitimate concern (regarding Digiturk's commercial rights) but banning all these websites will not solve the issue. The decision opens the way to collateral damage," added Akdeniz.
Blogger was entirely banned on the basis of Turkish copyright law, which allows for the entire service to be banned and not only the content considered to have infringed copyright. It is believed that about 600 000 Turkish bloggers are using the Google service to publish their personal journals, out of which the large majority do nothing to infringe the law and therefore do not to be banned.
Akdeniz also made the differentiation between regular websites and platforms for user-generated content such as Blogger, Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, considering the courts should make this difference and not ban entire platforms. Technical solutions can be found to solve issues related to intellectual and property rights.
The court's decision brought forth a vivid reaction from bloggers and their readers. About 9 000 Facebook users joined a group called "Do not touch my blog" and similar campaigns have also been created on other websites, such as Twitter.
It also seems that the Turkish authorities want to continue their fight with Google as Blogger was not the only site where "matches (whose broadcasting rights) belong to Digiturk and Lig TV are broadcasted by certain websites, disregarding all relevant laws," according to Digiturk's own statement. Yet, Blogger.com was the only one banned by the court.
"The process for making a copyright claim for content uploaded to Blogger is straightforward and efficient, and we encourage all content owners to use it rather than seek a broad ban on access to the service," said a Google spokesperson.
While Turkey is facing two more applications about blocked access to Google websites and Last.fm which are pending at the Strasbourg ECtHR, the Turkish courts continue to issue blocking orders.
Several Turkish and well-known international websites have no access in Turkey including playboy.com, vimeo.com, ffffound.com, Sanalika.com, a Turkish virtual world and playground, Azadiyawelat.com, the website of a Kurdish newspaper, Fizy.com, a popular music and video sharing Turkish website which won an award for best music search engine at the 2010 Mashable Awards or 5Posta.org, a popular blog which contains articles about sexuality, sexual politics and internet censorship.
With the number of blocked websites continuing to grow, legal challenges to blocking orders have started to occur. Timur Manisali, the owner of bugunkilicdaroglu.com website, who wrote on Kemal Kiliçdaroglu, the leader of the main Turkish opposition party, found his website banned, following the request for injunction made by Kiliçdaroglu's lawyers.
The blocking order, issued by the Ankara 3rd Criminal Court of Peace, was not communicated directly to Timur Manisali, who was not given the possibility to defend himself. However, Cyber-Rights.Org.tr, a non-profit organisation offering pro-bono legal assistance to victims of internet censorship in Turkey, started Manisali's defence and filed an appeal on December 2010.
The defence argued, among other things, that according to a new law from 2007, the courts are no longer empowered to rule for blocking websites in relation to private law matters, including for claims of defamation and other personal rights. Thus, on 6 January 2011, the Ankara 11th Criminal Court of First Instance overturned the initial decision by lifting the injunction over bugunkilicdaroglu.com.
Fighting political internet censorship in Turkey: one site won back, 10,000
to go (4.03.2011)
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2011/03/05/index-on-censorship-fighting-politic...
Blogspot banned in football row (4.03.2011)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12639279
EDRi-gram: Is YouTube back online in Turkey? (3.11.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.21/youtube-blocking-turkey
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Umsetzung des SWIFT-Abkommens missachtet den Datenschutz
The "top secret" status of the implementation of the SWIFT/TFTP Agreement has irked MEPs such as Dutch member Sophie In't Veld, who has warned the Commission and Member States that they may block other transatlantic data deals in the future.
The Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), also known as the SWIFT agreement, is ostensibly an anti-terrorism measure which allows US authorities to request and, upon the approval of Europol (who can thereafter also gain access), large volumes of transaction information from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) - an inter-service banking company used in roughly 80 percent of international transactions. The agreement came into force in the summer of 2010.
This controversial agreement, which EDRi has advocated consistently against, due to concerns about proportionality, transparency and fundamental rights, was endorsed with reluctance by MEPS, who initially vetoed it in February 2010. They won a number of concessions, including a specially appointed EU representative to oversee the transfer of the data and the inclusion of an oversight body (although this function is carried out by Europol, which is considered by many not to have an adequate level of independence) who would approve requests for data.
However, MEPs now worry that the Agreement is being circumvented and requests for information have been denied, which In't Veld has described as "a symptom of a widespread culture of secrecy and reluctance to be held accountable".
The Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU expressed similar concerns in a letter to the Council on 8 February, which states that Berlin is "deeply concerned" about the Commission and Europol "repeatedly sidestepping questions or not answering them at all."
Alexander Alvaro, MEP in charge of the dossier in the European Parliament, cited the conclusions of a Report on the implementation of the TFTP carried out by Europol's Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) that oversees data protection issues. These, he said, raise serious concerns about compliance with EU data protection rules, as Europol seems to be just "rubberstamping" requests for the transfer of raw data without any scrutiny or oversight. Authorisation of these bulk transfers seems to be on the basis of oral, unrecorded requests, and all documents have so far been classified as top secret.
The report, published on 2 March 2011, was the first inspection of the implementation of the TFTP agreement conducted in November 2010. The JSB found that many data protection requirements were not being met and, that despite the fact that US requests for data were often too general and abstract, Europol approved each request received. Due to the amount of oral requests received, the JSB reported that adequate internal and external audit of the necessity and proportionality of data transferred to the US was "impossible".
In light of the report, German Greens member Jan Philipp Albrecht declared that what Parliament achieved during negotiations has dissolved into thin air and has called on the Commission and Member States in the Council to terminate the agreement with the US.
In't Veld explained in a press release that "our support for this and other, forthcoming agreements (such as on PNR) clearly rely on the trustworthiness of our partners... We will need stronger assurances that protection of personal data of European citizens is not a mere box ticking exercise, but a genuine mission of all EU bodies".
The Commission is set to publish its evaluation of the TFTP on 17 March 2011. Alvaro has urged the Commission to take account of the disregard for Article 4 of the Agreement and EU data protection rules and demanded that all relevant documents be declassified. He also invited the European Data Protection Supervisor to submit a report evaluating the functioning of the TFTP.
Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme is not respecting data protection
safeguards (5.03.2011)
http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/...
PM to Europol report: SWIFT banking data agreement must be terminated! (only
in German, 8.03.2011)
http://janalbrecht.eu/2011/03/08/pm-zu-europol-bericht-swift-bankdaten...
Europol throws private data of EU citizens to grab (only in Dutch, 7.03.2011)
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/5403/Internet/article/detail/1232610/2011...
MEP: SWIFT 'secrecy' may hamper new data deals with US (28.02.2011)
http://euobserver.com/18/31880
European Commission and Europol refuse to supply data on the implementation
of the EU-US TFTP (SWIFT) agreement as it is "Top Secret" (02.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/feb/01eu-usa-swift-data-secret.htm
Letter from German Delegation to Council of the European Union (8.02.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/feb/eu-council-germany-europol-usa...
Report on the inspection of Europol's implementation of the TFTP agreement,
conducted in November 2010 by the Europol Joint Supervisory Authority
(4.03.2011)
http://europoljsb.consilium.europa.eu/media/111009/terrorist%20finance...
US and EU agreement on exchanging personal data for the purposes of the
Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (2.03.2011)
http://europoljsb.consilium.europa.eu/media/112160/jsb%20tftp%20inspec...
(contribution by Raegan MacDonald - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Französische Verordnung legt fest, was Hosting-Provider auf Vorrat sp...
The French Government published on 1 March 2011 the decree establishing the data that must be retained, at the transmission or modification of online content, by the hosting companies, including video sharing and blog hosting services.
The decree related to the conservation of the data "allowing for the identification of any person having contributed to the creation of online content" has been expected since the promulgation of the law on the confidence in the numerical economy (LCEN - implementing the E-commerce Directive) on 21 June 2004, and stipulates now what data, related to the creation, modification or suppression of online content, must be retained by the hosting companies for a period of one year.
According to the decree with immediate application (so in force since 1 March 2011), the data to be preserved include: the identifier of the connection at the origin of the communication, the identifier attributed by the information system to the content that makes the object of the operation, the types of protocols used for the connection and for the content transfer, the nature of the operation, the date and hour of the operation and the identifier used by the author of the operation, when provided. Moreover, the hosting companies must also preserve, for one year after the deletion of an account, even more sensitive data such as the date and time when an account is created and the identifier of the connection, his/her complete name, pseudonyms, associated post addresses, e-mail and associated addresses, telephone numbers and even password.
In case the service subscribed is a paid one, the hosting companies must also retain data related to the payment method, the amount paid and date and hour of the transaction. Furthermore, they must preserve, for one year after the contribution to the content creation, data including the connection identifier, the identifier attributed to the subscriber, the identifier of the terminal used for the connection, the date and hour of the beginning and end of the connection and the features of the subscriber's line.
Following the critical opinions raised by the decree, CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority) has made public its opinion on the matter issued in 2007, but in the Official Journal.
At that time, CNIL was emphasizing the ambiguity of the text in relation to the term "hosting company" which was not yet clearly defined, thus creating a legal insecurity that could be prejudicial to the protection of Internet users' privacy and personal data. CNIL was also warning that only employees specially designated by the legal or administrative authorities in charge with making such requests to ISPs or hosting companies should have access to Internet users' personal data.
The data protection authority was also drawing attention to the ambiguity of the term "identifier" as it would not relate to the same type of data if we refer to an ADSL or free of charge WiFi Internet connection.
Some associations, including one representing Dailymotion, Google France and Facebook announced they intend to file an appeal to the State Council for the annulment of the decree. The arguments that will likely lay the foundation of the appeal are related to the ambiguity of the definitions in the text, to the effect that the hosting companies are required to store passwords that are useless in the identification of people, to the requirement to retain content elements which is explicitly forbidden by law and to the lack of provisions related to a remuneration of the hosting companies, having in view the additional work required by the preservation of the respective data.
LCEN finally has its decree on the data to be retained by the hosting
companies (only in French, 1.03.2011)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/18191-la-lcen-a-enfin-son-decret-sur-...
Cnil pins downs the decree on the data conservation (only in French,
4.03.2011)
http://www.01net.com/www.01net.com/editorial/529385/la-cnil-epingle-le...
The LCEN decree should be attacked to the State Council (only in French,
(2.03.2011)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/18203-le-decret-lcen-devrait-etre-att...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Niederländische Internetprovider verzichten auf "unwirksame"...
In 2010, the largest Dutch internet providers were taking steps to implement the blocking of blacklists provided by the Dutch Child Abuse hotline. EDRi has always insisted that the blocking of websites with images of sexual child abuse is a counterproductive measure. The Dutch internet providers, together with the Dutch hotline, now share the views of EDRi in this regard, that web-blocking is not an effective measure.
The letter was sent to the Dutch Minister of Justice on 10 November 2010, but was officially released only at the beginning of March 2011 (i.e. after the publication of the report of the European Parliament which also touched on web blocking). The providers conclude (unofficial translation):
"Based on the reports of the Child Abuse Hotline we have come to the preliminary conclusion that (...) blocking websites containing child pornography by means of a blacklist can no longer serve as a reliable and effective way to contribute to fighting child pornography on the internet."
This is an important step in opening up the debate for concrete, effective measures against the distribution of sexual child abuse images: taking down the websites and prosecuting the criminals behind these websites, instead of hiding these websites behind internet filters.
The original file can be found here (only in Dutch, 18.11.2010)
https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/brief-meldpunt.pdf
An unofficial translation of the letter can be found on the website of
Bits of Freedom (7.03.2011)
https://www.bof.nl/2011/03/07/dutch-providers-abandon-ineffective-web-...
(contribution by Ot van Daalen - EDRi-member Bits of Freedom, Netherlands)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Belgien: Four-Strikes kommen zurück
After the proposition of a Belgian version of the French three strikes law was left aside due to the withdrawal from the political life of the deputy that proposed it in 2010, a new proposal was tabled on 27 January 2011 by five liberal deputies.
The legislation proposed last year was a stronger version than the French Hadopi law meaning that, in addition, the Belgium draft was introducing the obligation for ISPs to block Internet access to the sites hosting content considered as "pirated".
Another difference from the French law is that the graduate response would take four stages instead of three: a first warning sent by e-mail and subsequently, in case of repeated offences, an administrative fine, a reference to the court which could lead to a penalty ranging from a financial fine to the limitation of the infringer's access to the Internet connection and, finally, the doubling of the fine and the cutting of the Internet connection.
As shown by a comparison made by NURPA (the Net Users' Rights Protection Association), the new proposal is practically identical to the one tabled in 2010.
Together with Hadopi Mayonnaise group, NURPA decided to launch "a graduate response system against this proposition" starting with the creation of an eight-page brochure presenting the main arguments against the proposed law. The brochure is to be presented to the Assembly of the Belgium deputies and senators so as to provide them with a different point of view and will also be disseminated on social networks and web sites.
Further on, the two groups will provide a comprehensive analysis of the draft law and the dangers it poses for fundamental rights. Meetings and conferences will also be organised to facilitate a dialogue with all those interested in the matter.
The Belgium Hadopi returns to surface, the graduate counter-response is
getting organised (only in French, 3.03.2011)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/18212-l-hadopi-belge-refait-surface-l...
Graduate response against a Belgium type HADOPI (only in French, 3.03.2011)
http://nurpa.be/actualites/2011/03/riposte-graduee-contre-une-HADOPI-a...
Underlining the differences between the versions of 18 March 2010 and of 27
January 2011 of the graduate response of MR (Reforming Movement) (only in
French)
http://nurpa.be/resources/files/NURPA_riposte-graduee-diff_03-2010_01-...
EDRi-gram: Four strikes in the Belgium draft copy of the French Hadopi law
(24.03.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.6/four-strikes-belgium
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Nachhaltige Modelle für Kreative im Digitalen Zeitalter
Each year, the Free Culture Forum (FCF) brings together key organisations and active voices in the sphere of free/libre culture. It responds to the need for an international arena to facilitate the coordination of a global framework for action to defend and expand the sphere in which human creativity and knowledge can prosper freely and sustainably. As civil society, it is our responsibility to oppose practices that plunder this common heritage and to block its future development.
The Declaration and "How-to" guide to new models of sustainability in the digital era that we are releasing defends our conviction that:
- copyright as we currently know it is counterproductive, and the restructuring of existing models is inevitable and imperative; attempts by some entities and corporations to profit through the creation of monopolies, often with the active connivance of government, should be stopped ;
- the sharing and exchange of ideas is of vital importance to culture and we must work towards maximising governmental and institutional initiatives that understand and support these dynamics;
- it is necessary and important that people be compensated for socially valuable creative work.
This document looks at some of the many possible alternative models, and we should be encouraging and promoting experiments based on these ideas.
FCF invites citizens, policy reformers and institutions to take the content of this practical proposal into account and to use its release as an opportunity to discuss the future together.
FCF will continue to collect signatures and contributions. With them we will be developing new versions as new requirements and new solutions appear.
FCForum Declaration: Sustainable Models for Creativity
http://fcforum.net/sustainable-models-for-creativity/declaration
How-To for Sustainable Creativity
http://fcforum.net/sustainable-models-for-creativity/how-to-manual
(Thanks to Free Culture Forum)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Portugiesische Regierung nutzt "Honeypots" zur Abschreckung ...
In an attempt to scare alleged illegal downloaders, the Portuguese Ministry of Culture, through the General Inspection of Cultural Activities (IGAC), in collaboration with the Portuguese Phonographic Association (AFP), has decided to start using a so-called "honeypot".
"Honeypots" is a term that describes sites and services set up as traps with the purpose to lure people into downloading copyrighted files. Some filesharers believe that some of the lawsuits of the type pay-up-or-else against BitTorrent users partly came from such services that were actually set up by the copyright holders themselves.
Portugal's Government has proven the existence of honeypots. The protocol signed between IGAC and AFP was initially meant to create a framework for AFP to provide "anti-piracy" training to IGAC inspection officers. As the text of the protocol was not made public, the Portuguese Pirate Party filed a complaint to the authorities and the protocol was publicly released as required by FoI law.
The text includes, among other things, the promotion of a honeypot scheme where the music industry gives IGAC the right to upload tracks to file-sharing networks, thus setting traps to collect the IP-addresses of Portuguese file-sharers. The text of the agreement also shows that the main purpose of the collaboration is to influence public opinion through the media.
The file-sharers caught through this honeypot system will then be notified by their ISPs and may even face the disconnection of their Internet access due to a breach of the terms of service, even without solid evidence from the authorities. IGAC will rely on screenshots to prove what unauthorized material was shared, a piece of evidence that can be easily forged.
The Portuguese Pirate Party's opinion is that the Ministry of Culture is acting undemocratically and in favour the entertainment industry rather than in the interest of the citizens.
Portuguese Government Creates Honeypot To Combat Piracy (2.03.2011)
http://torrentfreak.com/portuguese-government-creates-honeypot-to-comb...
We are Attentive (only in Portuguese, 20.01.2011)
http://partidopiratapt.eu/arquivos/1184
This article is also available in:
Macedonian: Последен повик за петиција за владина....
Deutsch: Petition gegen die Nutzung biometrischer Daten durch den Staat
By means of a petition, the international Alliance 'Hands off biometrics' will urge the Council of Europe to start an investigation on the collection and storage of biometric data by Member States.
European governments are increasingly demanding storage of biometric data (fingerprints and facial scans) from individuals. These include storing them on contactless "RFID" chips in passports and/or ID cards. Some are going even further and implementing database storage of these biometric data, e.g. France, Lithuania and the Netherlands.
These are inherently dangerous practices. In a democratic society, the collection of the biometrics of an entire population is disproportionate and, for other reasons, unnecessary interference with our right to privacy (Article 8) and other rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Because of these concerns, the United Kingdom Government has recently abandoned the policy of collecting fingerprints from citizens. Yet, most countries are keen to fingerprint people who have not committed a crime.
That's why the Alliance will urgently ask Secretary General Jagland of the Council of Europe to request the countries involved to explain whether their national law on this subject is in line with the European Convention and ECtHR court rulings. Thus, Member States will have to address questions regarding proportionality, subsidiarity, effectiveness, function creep, safety measures and "accordance with the law".
The petition is supported by Privacy International, EDRi and several other civil rights defenders from 15 European countries and 7 countries outside Europe so far.
The deadline for sending your support is 18 March 2011.
Petition request to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg
https://www.privacyinternational.org/article/petition-council-europe-g...
(Contribution by Alliance "Hands off biometrics" / " Halte au stockage biométrique")
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Kindesmissbrauch im Internet – Mitgliedsstaaten verteidi...
The first Council Working Group meeting on the proposed European Directive on Child Exploitation produced near unanimity among the Member States that their right to do nothing must be defended. As a result, the Council will enter the negotiations with the Parliament defending the "General Approach" text that it adopted in December 2010. Only Germany and Romania spoke out in favour of making an effort to find a more balanced text and a compromise with the European Parliament.
The Council text removes the obligation on Member States to impose blocking and replaces it with the statement that blocking must be "possible" which, of course, it is, regardless of whether it is used or not. Starting from a position of doing nothing, it then gives Member States the power to do less, namely to introduce blocking by "non-legislative" means - i.e. by outsourcing the problem to Internet providers, who cannot prosecute the crime and can only take cosmetic measures. The text then concludes with weak "safeguards" such as unspecified "necessity" and information to the end users and "content providers" that the blocking is happening.
The explanatory "recital" of the Council text reinforces the meaninglessness of the text by offering everybody the right to do pretty much everything. For example, it simultaneously proposes "stimulating (sic) Internet Service Providers on a voluntary basis to develop codes of conduct and guidelines for blocking access" to illegal material and explaining that such developments must "adhere to existing legal and judicial procedures and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights". In other words, blocking must be (but may not be) prescribed by law and implemented following judicial decisions.
The text on deletion of websites is no better - obliging Member States to delete (although not necessarily by law, which would imply that law enforcement authorities might have to get involved) illegal material on their territories and suggests the legally meaningless obligation to "endeavour" to have the websites deleted when they are hosted abroad.
It should be stressed, of course, that Member States do take varying degrees of action with regard to online child abuse. This determination to ensure that the Directive maintains the right to do nothing does not mean that that they will do nothing. Some Member States are very active, such as the German initiatives to have websites abroad deleted and investigated, while others are not.
By contrast to the confusing and contradictory nature of the Council text, the European Parliament seeks to achieve two clear and concrete goals - placing the emphasis on addressing crimes against children and establishing a harmonised approach to restrictions on the right to communication. While far from perfect and still too open to excessive implementation, the text is consistent and addresses both points in a coherent way.
Focus on addressing the crimes against children:
- Removal at source: This measure addresses the existence of illegal
material, avoiding all risks of re-victimisation, while allowing Internet
providers to keep records of content to facilitate criminal investigation
and victim identification;
- International cooperation: It is particularly important to remove the
systemic problems in communication and cooperation with third countries'
authorities that lead to illegal content in websites hosted abroad not being
dealt with expeditiously. This cooperation could include, for example, the
setting up of single points of contact for competent authorities abroad;
- Annual reporting on removal activities: This will help identify individual
successes and failures of Member States at a national and international
level, to disseminate best practices and ensure maximum efforts to prosecute
criminals and identify victims.
Harmonised respect for existing European legal obligations:
- The least restrictive alternative is prioritised, namely, the deletion of
websites. Only when this is impossible can a more restrictive method (such
as blocking) be considered.
- In line with the European Convention on Human Rights, alternative measures
to removal at source (such as blocking) must be "necessary" (i.e., the
measure must be effective and no other measure can be reasonably available
taking into account technical and economic feasibility).
- Respecting existing case law of the European Court of Human Rights,
restrictions must be imposed in a predictable (according to law),
transparent (i.e., the measure should be based on relevant factors or
sufficient evidence) and proportionate (i.e., the negative effects of a
measure should be counter-balanced by its benefits in terms of a legitimate
public policy objective) manner.
Over the next few months, the European Parliament will attempt to negotiate a text with the Member States in the Council, under the watchful eye of the Commission. The first such meeting will be on 16 March, the second meeting is on 31st March and the third one will be on an as yet undefined date in April. To support the Parliament's position, simply call or e-mail members of the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee to heap praise on their good work so far. More information on our campaign page below.
Campaign page
http://www.edri.org/stop_web_blocking_2
EDRi summary of Parliament text:
English: http://www.edri.org/compromise_en
Italian: http://www.edri.org/compromise_it
German: http://www.edri.org/compromise_de
French: http://www.edri.org/compromise_fr
Hungarian: http://www.edri.org/compromise_hu
Swedish: http://www.edri.org/compromise_se
Spanish: http://www.edri.org/compromise_es
Dutch: http://www.edri.org/compromise_nl
Portuguese: http://www.edri.org/compromise_pt
Romanian: http://www.edri.org/compromise_ro
Council and Parliament texts:
http://www.edri.org/files/current_texts.pdf
EDRi blocking booklet:
http://www.edri.org/internet-blocking-brochure
EDRi Self-Regulation study:
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_selfreg_final_20110124.pdf
(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
Electronic identification, authentication and signatures in the European
digital single market Public consultation
Deadline for comments: 15 April 2011
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=eid4&lang=en
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
Bulgaria: Institute of Modern Politics - Special Report on Acts of the
government and the security services in Bulgaria which threaten or openly
violate citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms (02.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/feb/bulgaria-special-report-instit...
Article 29 Working Party on data protection: Letter to Commissioner Cecilia
Malmström, Commissioner for DG Home Affairs (Internal security and
immigration): EU PNR agreements with the US, Canada and Australia - new
negotiations. Expresses concerns about the EU-USA PNR, EU-CANADA,
EU-Australia and future PNR agreements
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/feb/eu-art-29-wp-dp-letter-pnr.pdf
UK: Newspaper does not have to identify anonymous commenters, rules High
Court (28.02.2011)
http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=11798
ENISA: Facing the cyber-zombies - EU Agency gets tough on Botnets
(8.03.2011)
The EU's 'cyber security' Agency ENISA published a comprehensive
study on the botnet threat (networks of ordinary computers controlled by
cybercriminals),and how to address it. The report looks at the reliability
of botnet size estimates and makes recommendations for all groups involved
in the fight against botnets. Alongside the main report, the Agency sets out
the top 10 key issues for policymakers in 'Botnets:10 Tough Questions'
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/press-releases/facing-the-cyber-zombi...
Open Government Data in Slovakia (3.03.2011)
http://blog.okfn.org/2011/03/03/open-government-data-in-slovakia/
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
11-12 March 2011, Ankara, Turkey
ICEGEG-2011- 3rd International Conference on E-Government and E-Governance
http://www.icegeg.com/index.html
27-29 March 2011, Ghent, Belgium
Online content: policy and regulation for a global market
http://www.eurocpr.org/
28 March 2011, Paris, France
5th European eAccessbility Forum: Benefits and costs of e-accessibility
http://inova.snv.jussieu.fr/evenements/colloques/colloques/70_index_en...
1 April 2011, Bielefeld, Germany
Big Brother Awards Germany
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/index_html-en
7-8 April 2011, Amsterdam, Netherlands
European Legal Network Conference "Free Software law for the next ten years"
http://fsfe.org/projects/ftf/legal-conference.en.html
15-17 April 2011, Berlin, Germany
Re:publica XI: Conference about blogs, social media and the digital society
http://re-publica.de/11/en/
5-6 May 2011, Milano, Italy
The European Thematic Network on Legal Aspects of Public Sector
nformation - public conference
http://www.lapsi-project.eu/milan
17-18 May 2011, Berlin Germany
European Data Protection Reform & International Data Protection Compliance
http://www.edpd-conference.com
30-31 May 2011, Belgrade, Serbia
Pan-European dialogue on Internet governance (EuroDIG)
http://www.eurodig.org/
2-3 June 2011, Krakow, Poland
4th International Conference on Multimedia, Communication, Services and
Security organized by AGH in the scope of and under the auspices of INDECT
project
http://mcss2011.indect-project.eu/
12-15 June 2011, Bled, Slovenia
24th Bled eConference, eFuture: Creating Solutions for the Individual,
Organisations and Society
http://www.bledconference.org/index.php/eConference/2011
14-16 June 2011, Washington DC, USA
CFP 2011 - Computers, Freedom & Privacy
"The Future is Now"
http://www.cfp.org/2011/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
11-12 July 2011, Barcelona, Spain
7th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics (IDP 2011): Net
Neutrality and other challenges for the future of the Internet
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/lang/en/idp2011/?lang=en