This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ACTA – Wir sind noch lange nicht am Ziel
Following the announcement of David Martin, the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in charge of the ACTA dossier in the European Parliament, that he will advise his colleagues to vote against the proposal, a widespread assumption appears to have developed that ACTA is now dead. This is not just wrong. It is dangerous and wrong.
The background of what's happening in the European Parliament is as follows. The dossier is being handled in five Parliamentary Committees – four are providing “opinions” and one, the International Trade Committee (INTA), has the overall responsibility. Of the four opinion Committees, the MEPs in charge of the dossier, two are (still!) in favour – Marielle Gallo (EPP, France) and Jan Zahradil (ECR, Czech Republic). The other two are opposed – Amelia Andersdottir (Greens/EFA, Sweden) and Dimitrios Droutsas (Socialists & Democrats, Greece). As well as supporting ACTA, Jan Zahradil is also noteworthy as being one of only 28 (4%) MEPs to vote against last week's European Parliament Resolution to limit exports of censorship tools to autocratic regimes.
More notably, if you extrapolate the numbers of MEPs from the political groups of the pro-ACTA rapporteurs, the total is 42%, while the total from the anti-ACTA rapporteurs is 33%. Thankfully, due to the determination of the citizens who protested all across Europe, the situation is no longer that bleak.
The current balance is approximately 52.5% of the Parliament opposed to ACTA and 47.5% in favour. To put it in another way, if just 20 MEPs have their minds changed as a result of the massive lobbying campaign currently underway and organised by the European Commission and big business interests, then ACTA will be adopted. The situation becomes even more precarious when we consider that it often happens that more than 5% of MEPs do not vote (either absent or abstaining) meaning that the chances of the current tiny majority being sufficient are more a matter of luck than anything else.
We are at a stage where every single vote in the European Parliament is of huge value. If the pro-ACTA message of the rapporteurs in the Legal Affairs and (shockingly) the Development Committee prevail, this will create a new momentum and will be used to “prove” that ACTA is a legitimate proposal.
At the same time, there are still Parliamentarians and officials in the European Parliament whose addition to ACTA is more important than their loyalty to the Parliament and European democracy. There are more and more rumours of “non-political” committee officials in certain Parliamentary committees actively working to prevent progress from being made and individual Parliamentarians are still trying to undermine the Parliament's democratic prerogatives by demanding a delay of the vote until the European Court of Justice has ruled.
Assuming that the anti-democratic elements in the European Parliament will not be allowed to have their way, there are two possible outcomes. The first is the anti-ACTA campaign will be anesthetised by complacency – assuming victory, citizens will stop contacting Parliamentarians, will not take part in demonstrations and will reassure MEPs that our attention span is so short that we can be ignored on ACTA, that we can be ignored on the upcoming IPRED Directive, that we can be ignored on the upcoming Data Retention Directive. And we reassure our opponents that no future democratic movement will be able to sustain a campaign as long as needed. We lose. Europe loses.
Or we do our duty for European democracy and maintain our pressure right up until the vote. And then we win. And Europe wins.
EDRi - Stop ACTA campaign page
http://edri.org/stopacta
EDPS new opinion on ACTA (24.02.2012)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/...
Liberals and Democrats reject ACTA (25.04.2012)
http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/...
(Contribution by Joe McNamee- EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Entscheidung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs in der Rechtssache Bonnier
Bonnier Audio took the Swedish Internet service provider (ISP) Perfect Telecommunication to court, to obtain an order to disclose the identities of alleged infringers of their intellectual property (IP) rights. As a result, the Swedish High Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if, assuming such a measure was proportionate, a Member State could introduce legislation which would require telecommunications data to be made available for such purposes. More specifically, would such a national measure be in breach of the Data Retention Directive?
In this important decision, the CJEU ruled it was indeed possible, albeit subject to far more challenging safeguards than currently in force in certain EU Member States, most particularly in the UK and Germany. The ruling therefore reaffirms the importance of making sure that the interpretation of EU law is done in a way which is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of EU citizens.
Background
In the Bonnier Audio case, a Swedish audio book publisher, Bonnier
Audio, sued a Swedish Internet service provider (ISP), Perfect
Communication, because 27 audio books had been made available via a
file-sharing service. On the basis of Article 8 of the intellectual
property rights enforcement directive (2004/48/EC), Bonnier Audio wanted
a court order to have Perfect Communications disclosing the identities
of the alleged infringers. The ISP contested this request, arguing that
the request was not in line with the data retention directive (2006/24/EC).
The question to be answered by the Court of Justice of the European Union was whether the data retention directive preclude Member States from permitting court orders against ISPs that require the disclosure of information on alleged infringers of intellectual property rights on request of rightsholders.
Somewhat unusually, the question partially answers itself by stating that it was assumed that adequate evidence of an infringement was available and assuming that access to the data was proportionate. The Court accepted this premise and explicitly made an assumption that the national legislation was in line with the European law.
The second question asked was whether the non-transposition of the data retention directive was having any influence on the answer given by the Court.
In summary, the question was, assuming access to the data is proportionate, does the data retention directive prevent the application of Article 8 of the IP rights enforcement directive to order the disclosure of identities of alleged infringers to rightsholders in civil proceedings?
The Court ruled that as long as the order of disclosure was based on evidence and that it was proportionate and necessary, nothing in the data retention directive and in the E-Privacy Directive precludeed a Member State to adopt such a rule.
Does it mean that data retention for enforcement of IP rights is
required by the CJEU?
No.
The decision does not mean that data retention is required for the
purpose of enforcement of IP rights. The ruling means that it is
theoretically possible, in certain circumstances, to access consumer
data, in particular where the exceptional conditions described in
Article 15(1) of the E-Privacy Directive (2002/58/ec) are met; where
(contrary to current practice in, for example, Germany and the UK), the
data is being accessed to facilitate an investigation and;
where a fair balance between the various interests at stake is genuinely
met.
The European Court said that the appraisal of whether such conditions were met by national legislation was a matter for national courts. Deeper issues, such as the proportionality, necessity and, therefore, legality of data retention as a policy were not assessed.
On what ground did the CJEU rule?
1. Access to retained data.
The Court ruled that, assuming the legality of the instrument used to
justify the storage of the data, assuming the proportionality of the
procedures, rules and purpose of accessing the data and assuming that
the storage and access of the data maintains a fair balance between the
fundamental rights at stake, it is theoretically possible for a national
court to implement a national provision permitting access to
communications data.
2. The Court did not rule on the legality of non business-related storage of data using the exception provided in Article 15 of the E-Privacy Directive.
3. The Court did not rule on the legality of non business-related storage of data under the Data Retention Directive. Consequently, the only formal position taken by any part of the Court on data retention is that of the General in the Telefonica/Promusicae case – “(i)t may be doubted whether the storage of traffic data of all users without any concrete suspicion - laying in a stock, as it were - is compatible with fundamental rights."
What is the impact of this ruling on the recent Scarlet/SABAM and
Netlog/SABAM cases?
There is no impact.
The balance between the various rights at stake still needs to be
demonstrably achieved in all cases. Unlike in the SABAM cases, the Court
did not rule on the legality of the practical application of specific
provisions in this case, but on whether a legal implementation was
theoretically possible.
In Scarlet/SABAM and SABAM/Netlog cases, the Court said that the protection of IP rights should not outweigh the protection of privacy, freedom of communication and freedom to conduct business. Today’s decision does not change the outcome of those cases. The legality of the practical implementation of the Swedish legislation was not assessed, as the Court ruled that this was a matter to be ruled upon by the national court.
What does this mean for the upcoming referral to the Court from Ireland asking whether data retention per se is legal or not? The questions in the Bonnier Audio case deliberately avoided the core question regarding the legality of data retention per se, whereas the Irish case will assess the basic principle of data retention as a policy.
The Swedish referral was asked in a way that the fundamental aspect of the case was avoided, while in the Irish case the legality of data retention per se will be the central aspect of the question. The focus of the question in the Irish case is different, so today’s case does not provide any clue on the forthcoming referral from the Irish supreme court on the legality per se of data retention. What does the ruling mean for current practices in Germany and the UK?
The European Court of Justice appears to be, consciously or not, highlighting the questionable practices in Germany and in the UK in several parts of the ruling. For instance, the Court emphasised that the use of data retained is only permitted in individual cases, for the purpose of investigation and where the requirement of the principle of proportionality is taken into account.
In Germany, however, none of these three requirements are currently
taken into account, since:
1. around 100.000 IP addresses per month are transmitted to rightsholders;
2. the principle of proportionality is not respected and in most cases,
the (often clueless) end-user has to pay a significant amount (or face a
court proceeding); and
3. the data transmitted is rarely used in order to launch an
investigation but rather to send directly a notification to the end user.
Access to IP addresses in Germany (only in German, 31.05.2011)
http://www.eco.de/2011/pressemeldungen/300-000-adressen-pro-monat-erfo...
Abuse of data in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACS:Law
Court ruling Bonnier case (19.04.2010)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=121...
(Contribution from EDRi Brussels office)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Spanien: Gesetzesvorstoß zur Kriminalisierung von Protestaufrufen im ...
The Spanish Government intends to pass a reform of the Penal Code that would criminalise the organisation of street protests that "seriously disturb the public peace", by any kind of media including online social networks such as Facebook.
On 11 April 2012, Jorge Fernandez Diaz, the Spanish interior minister, announced in the Congress the government was planning a reform of the Penal Code to criminalise those involved in organising street protests, following the widespread series of demonstrations that have taken place in Spain since May 2011. The law intends to prevent the organisation of any kind of protest organised through the Internet, thus qualifying as criminal any civil demonstration or public gathering.
The Spanish bill is extremely worrying not only by the censure it implies but by its implications as well, the measures being also totally disproportionate with regard to the declared goal in opposition to the necessity to safeguard people’s freedoms.
The bill could actually lead to criminalise the sharing of information online. According to the proposal, retweeting an event considered by the government violent, would be liable to two years imprisonment. As Internet Sans Frontieres points out, the dissemination and sharing of information “should not be criminalised in a disproportionate way, without taking into account the rights and freedoms of individuals, including the right to express freely on the Internet.” The determination of a violent event would implicitly lead to the violation of privacy as, in order to determine that someone is "organizing a violent rally over the Internet", the Government has to violate the right to privacy of Internet users. Also, such a qualification of an action can lead to an administrative injunction, without any control of an independent judge, to assess the profile of a user creating an event on a social network or calling for a demonstration on his/her website.
Certainly, the reaction of the Spanish Internet users was very strong and Twitter campaigns have already occurred such as #SoyCriminal (I am a Criminal) or #HolaDictatura (Hello Dictatorship). The Spanish government may get exactly the reverse reaction they are searching for – more public demonstrations organised online.
Spain Wants To Criminalise Online Organisation Of Social Protest (17.04.2012) http://www.internetsansfrontieres.com/Spain-Wants-To-Criminalise-Onlin... Organisation-Of-Social-Protest_a420.html
The Interior says that calling for gatherings on the Internet that may
turn to violence will be a crime (only in Spanish, 11.04.2012)
http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20120411/interior-avanza-que-convocar-conc...
Spain accused of 'draconian' plans to clamp down on protests (11.04.2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/9198496/Spain-a...
The violent callings on the Internet will be criminal crimes (only in
Spanish, 11.04.2012)
http://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-hacer-convocatorias-interne...
~#SoyCriminal
https://twitter.com/#!/search/%23SoyCriminal
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Tausende Österreicher wehren sich gegen die Vorratsdatenspeicherung
Two parallel initiatives by the Austrian AK Vorrat (working group data retention) are impressively supported by the general public. On the one hand, the citizens initiative for the abolishment of the EU data retention directive and the evaluation of national anti-terror legislation has already been signed by more than 100 000 citizens. On the other hand, already more than 7 000 persons have taken part in the planned constitutional complaint against the national implementation of data retention.
Last year the Austrian AK Vorrat started a citizens' initiative in order to commit the Austrian Government to take position against data retention on European level and to undertake an evaluation of the numerous national laws which have been implemented to allegedly fight terrorism. While this initiative has so far been supported by more than 100 000 people, the AK Vorrat is planning further actions to bring data retention to a downfall in Austria.
The Austrian government has delayed the implementation of the EU data retention directive for a long time. In spring 2010, after the EC has filed an infringement procedure, the government finally adopted a respective package of measures which entered into force on 1 April 2012.
Already in 2010 the working group started its preparations for an appeal to the Austrian Constitutional Court, but since a so-called individual complaint can be filed only against a law in force (and when the individual is directly affected by the challenged provisions) the activists had to wait till April 2012.
When this day came the working group presented its plans in a press conference. The target was to motivate about 1 000 individuals to join the complaint against the data retention in Austria. This target was reached only two days after its announcement. Within three weeks more than 18 000 persons have declared their intent to join the action, almost 7 000 of which have already submitted the necessary formal authorisation.
The mass complaint against data retention seems to become the biggest complaint in the history of the republic. In relative figures, the number of plaintiffs in Austria is much higher than the number of plaintiffs who supported the complaint which led to the suspension of the German data retention law in 2010: About 34 000 Germans have supported the appeal – at a population of more than 80 million. The number of 7 000 Austrian plaintiffs at a population of about 8 million is twice as much than in Germany.
Nevertheless some experts do not believe that the complaint will be successful in bringing down data retention in Austria. They claim that the Austrian Court is generally much more conservative in its rulings compared to the German judges and that the Austrian judges tend to rubber stamp what is determined by the EU.
The AK Vorrat activists are still quite optimistic about convincing the Constitutional Court. Their aim is not only to achieve a decision to reject the Austrian legislation for the implementation of data retention (as it happened in Germany or in the Czech Republic). They want to convince the Court that data retention per se is not compatible with fundamental rights at all.
The initiative represents among others EDRi member VIBE!AT, lawyers from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights and several activists. It is supported by green MP Albert Steinhauser. They call on for further support of the complaint.
All Austrian inhabitants who want to join the appeal are encouraged to send their declarations of support by 18 May 2012. Declaration forms are available at verfassungsklage.at
Also the citizens initiative is still open for support. All Austrians starting from the age of 16 can support the initiative online at zeichnemit.at
Constitutional Complaint against the national implementation of data
retention (only in German)
http://www.verfassungsklage.at/
Citizens Initiative for the abolishment of the EU Data Retention
directive and evaluation of national anti-terror legislation (only in
German)
http://www.zeichnemit.at
Arbeitskreis Vorratsdaten Österreich (AKVorrat.at) (only in German)
http://www.akvorrat.at
EDRi-gram: Austria: Petition against Data Retention Directive
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.24/austrian-data-retention-petiti...
(Contribution by Andreas Krisch - EDRi-member VIBE!AT)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Europäisches Parlament stimmt PNR-Abkommen mit den USA zu
On 19 April 2012, MEPs decided on the controversial EU-US Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to the US Department of Homeland Security. A motion for a resolution asking for an opinion from the Court of Justice was rejected and the adoption of Agreement was accepted (409 votes in favour, 226 against and 33 abstentions).
A significant minority of MEPs voted against the deal arguing that the data protection safeguards foreseen in the Agreement do not meet EU standards, that the current proposal has not addressed any of the demands and flaws identified by the European Parliament and that the criteria set in its Resolutions are not met. On the other hand, a majority of ECR (conservative), EPP (conservative) and many S&D (Socialists and Democrats) members argued that it was better to have an Agreement, albeit not entirely satisfactory, than to have no Agreement at all. On this basis, they were prepared to back down from the minimum standards that the Parliament had previously demanded.
The Parliament agreed to the transfer of passengers' flight data to the USA where they are processed and stored for 15 years, abandoning a 9-year long fight for better privacy protections for EU citizens with almost nothing to show for its efforts. In May 2010, the Parliament had initially postponed its vote on an Agreement with the US (applied provisionally since 2007) and raised serious concerns about the general approach to transfers of PNR data to third countries. By taking the decision to back the Agreement, MEPs ignored their own resolutions of May and November 2010 and opinions from the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Article 29 Working Party of national data protection agencies and numerous civil rights groups.
Commissioner Malmström said the new Agreement represented a substantial improvement on the existing Agreement from 2007, providing stronger protection for the right to citizens' privacy - since data will be ”masked out” (i.e. they will remain personally identifiable, but only after being “unmasked”. "Masking" is not defined) six months after a passengers' flight and EU citizens will be informed about the use of their data, they will be able to request access and request the correction or deletion of their PNR data. EU citizens will, however, have no way of enforcing this right.
Rapporteur Sophie in 't Veld (ALDE, NL) withdrew her name from the report, asserting: "The decision of the European Parliament does not reflect my recommendation. Therefore I choose to distance myself from it. It is disappointing that after nine years negotiating with our closest friends and allies, the US, we only got an agreement that gets reluctant support from a divided House”. Justice and Home Affairs Ministers will formally approve the Agreement on 26 April. The deal will replace the 2007 text and will apply for seven years.
European Parliament resolution on PNR (5.05.2010)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7...
European Parliament resolution on PNR (11.11.2010)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7...
EDRi opinion (2012)
http://edri.org/files/2012EDRi_US_PNRcomments.pdf
EDPS opinion (9.12.2011)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/...
Article 29 opinion (6.01.2012)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/o...
Friends of Privacy US – Legal Analysis (01.2012)
http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/pnr-agreement-st...
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Youtube verliert im Fall gegen GEMA
A German court decided on 20 April 2012 that YouTube was indirectly liable for the copyrighted content posted by its users in a case brought to court in 2010 by the royalty collective society Gema.
In this case, the defendant argued that it was not liable as it only provided the hosting platform for its users. Moreover, it had taken all reasonable measures to prevent copyright infringements.
The Hamburg court however considered that, by having provided its video platform, YouTube had contributed to the copyright infringement of 7 videos and was thus liable for not stopping the infringing acts as “disturber”, but not as an offender. Also, the website had not done enough to take down of the posted copyrighted clips "without delay" after the claimant had informed it about the copyright infringements. The court ruled that the site had to install, besides its already existing ContentID systems, keyword-based filters that would detect when users tried to post music clips whose rights are held by Gema.
Yet, judge Heiner Steeneck considered his ruling favoured both parties as GEMA had also asked for YouTube to take responsibility for videos uploaded in the past, which was denied. “YouTube isn’t the perpetrator here, it’s those people who illegally upload songs. That’s why YouTube doesn’t have to search all videos uploaded in the past. It only has to help detect videos from the moment it is alerted about possible violations,” said Steeneck.
"Today's ruling confirms that YouTube as a hosting platform cannot be obliged to control the content of all videos uploaded to the site," said a spokesperson for YouTube who added that the website remained “committed to finding a solution to the music licensing issue in Germany that will benefit artists, composers, authors, publishers and record labels, as well as the wider YouTube community."
This decision is not yet final and can be appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg and further on to the German Federal Supreme Court. Neither YouTube, nor Gema has taken any decision yet on whether to appeal the decision.
Copyright obligations of a video portal operator - Judgment in the
lawsuit against YouTube GEMA before the District Court of Hamburg (only
in German, 20.04.2012)
http://justiz.hamburg.de/presseerklaerungen/3384912/pressemeldung-2012...
YouTube loses court battle over music clips (20.04.2012)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17785613
YouTube Liable For Copyright Infringements, Court Rules (20.04.2012)
http://torrentfreak.com/youtube-liable-for-copyright-infringements-cou...
GEMA vs YouTube - what the Hamburg court really said... (21/04.2012)
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2012/04/gema-vs-youtube-what-hamburg-cour...
The songs that Youtube is obliged to delete
http://youtu.be/g5-ZhJQkwkQ
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Beschlagnahmung durch FBI bedroht Anonymität und Redefreiheit
On 18 April 2012, a server shared by Riseup Networks and May First/People Link in New York City and operated by the European Counter Network (ECN) was seized by a search warrant issued at the request of FBI.
ECN, the oldest independent Internet service provider in Europe, was providing an anonymous remailer service, Mixmaster, which was the target of an FBI investigation into the bomb threats against the University of Pittsburgh. Mixmaster was designed to resist censorship and support privacy and anonymity and therefore, makes it impossible for anyone to trace the emails. The system does not record logs of connections, details of who sent messages, or how they were routed.
Riseup Network believes that the action is just an attack to anonymity and free speech and an attempt to intimidation as, in any case, FBI will not be able to trace back to the senders of the messages. Free speech groups, human rights groups, academics, artists, historians, community centres, documentation and software archives and many others expressed concern over FBI action as the server also included the mailing list “cyber rights” (the oldest discussion list in Italy to discuss this topic), a Mexican migrant solidarity group, and other groups working to support indigenous groups and workers in Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa, that is over 300 email accounts. “We sympathize with the University of Pittsburgh community who have had to deal with this frightening disruption for weeks. We oppose such threatening actions. However, taking this server won’t stop these bomb threats. The only effect it has is to also disrupt e-mail and websites for thousands of unrelated people,” stated Devin Theriot-Orr, a spokesperson for Riseup who added that the seizure was anyway useless for the declared purpose of finding the anonymous threat.
“Furthermore, the network of anonymous remailers that exists is not harmed by taking this machine. So we cannot help but wonder why such drastic action was taken when authorities knew that the server contained no useful information that would help in their investigation.”
Certainly criminals could use Mixmaster, but it is unlikely they would do it as there are other easier ways they could use such as stolen phones, spyware, viruses and other techniques. Moreover remailers and other privacy measures can fight identity theft, physical crimes like stalking for instance. Mixmaster is meant to provide protection for ordinary people who want to follow the law.
The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and several endorsing organisations, including EDRi, strongly denounce the US Federal Authorities action considering it threatens a democratic Internet, silencing hundreds of users around the world for the misuse of anonymous internet services by one person.
Jamie McClelland, director of APC member organisation May First/People Link said, “We cannot stop malicious anonymous e-mail without also destroying the ability to use anonymous e-mail for beneficial purposes. According to the news, the bomb threats continue to arrive at the University of Pittsburgh after this outrageous seizure. There is no positive outcome to this action by the FBI.”
As APC points out, remailers are also important for corporate whistle blowers, democracy activists working under repressive regimes, and others to communicate vital information that would otherwise go unreported. “Such heavy-handed interventions by governments are a violation of US communication law and internet rights, as defined by the Internet Rights Charter, and we call on government leaders to stop these attacks on civil society and internet users’ rights,” said APC executive director, Anriette Esterhuysen.
The measure is therefore not only disproportionate but useless.
APC statement: Internet rights organisations strongly denounce attack on
anonymous online speech by US government (20.04.2012)
http://www.apc.org/en/news/apc-statement-internet-rights-organisations...
Riseup Press Release - Server Seizure April 2012 (18.04.2012)
https://help.riseup.net/en/seizure-2012-april
French version
https://help.riseup.net/fr/saisie-serveur-avril-2012
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Big Brother Awards Deutschland 2012
EDRi member FoeBuD staged the twelfth German Big Brother Awards on Friday, 13 April 2012 in Bielefeld, Germany. Seven "winners" were presented, and as in most years, none of these sent a representative to receive their award. Still, the organisers suspect that one or two winners were represented in the audience, judging from the silent and very earnest demeanour kept by a few guests in officious clothing.
The winner in the "Government and Administration" category was the Interior Minister of the state of Saxony, Markus Ulbig, who had earned his prize shortly before the previous awards, but after the close of nominations. The reason for the award had been stunningly excessive queries of mobile phone cell data in Dresden after an anti-neonazi demonstration in February 2011. Connection and location data for more than one million phone calls had been requested and received, which the award speech described as a "data tsunami". The winners show no sign of regret, and the data records are still not deleted.
The "Communication" award went to "the cloud", to highlight the dangerous trend that entices users to relinquish control over their own data to remote servers, exposing them to observation by foreign governments - US cloud providers are obliged to give access by the Patriot Act, even if their servers are situated in Europe. Another threat is that in case the provider or a government should find any stored content offensive, it might lead to account closure.
The Interior Minister in the German federal government was cited in the "Politics" category. Hans-Peter Friedrich received his award for three joint security projects that each violates the constitutional principle of separating the police, intelligence services and the military. These projects are a "national cyber defence centre" and a defence centre against right-wing extremism, both of these established without consulting the Parliament, and a database on violent right-wing extremism.
The "Consumer Protection" award went to Blizzard Entertainment, the company behind online role-playing games such as World of Warcraft, for various violations of their users' privacy. Blizzard have required players to run a program that scans their computers for "bot" software, they have continually extended the recording of gaming and communication activity, and they tried to introduce an obligation to use real names in their online forums.
In the "Technology" category, the Gamma Group of companies was chosen for having created surveillance software named "FinFisher" and offering it to authoritarian governments. Documents found in Egypt when state security agency offices were stormed in the 2011 revolution showed that the government had rated FinFisher very positively. The governments of Oman und Turkmenistan are also known to have been offered Gamma's services.
The "Workplace" award was won by Bofrost, a German-based manufacturer and home delivery service for frozen foods. In connection with industrial law court cases that Bofrost conducted and lost, they accessed a file on a computer belonging to the Bofrost staff council (staff councils are ”shop-floor” organizations representing employees at the company level in labour negotiations; they are a major element of, and therefore protected by, the co-determination provisions in German industrial law). On another staff council computer, the remote control software Ultra VNC was installed without the staff council's consent. Bofrost have pursued these industrial law cases through appeal courts, and they threatened FoeBuD with an injunction over certain details of the award speech (which FoeBuD were happy to leave out because the core of their award speech was not affected).
The "Economy" award went to a water filter producer, Brita GmbH, for their scheme to set up tap water vending machines in schools under the name of "schoolwater". Users are required to buy RFID-chipped bottles in order to prevent excessive use of their "flatrate" payment plan: the RFID system records when a vending machine is used and "locks" the bottle for 10 minutes. The award speech criticised this as an attempt to turn a resource as basic as water into a commercial commodity, and at the same time introduce a culture of over-technologisation and surveillance to children.
At the end of the gala, the audience was asked to choose one award that they found particularly "impressive, stunning, shocking, revolting, ...". With more than a third of the votes, the audience chose the Economy award, won by Brita's "schoolwater" scheme.
Nominations for the next German BBAs were opened on 1 January 2012 and will close on 31 December. The (German) nomination form is at https://www.bigbrotherawards.de/nominate; PGP-encrypted email to bba@foebud.org or fax and mail can also be used.
Winners at BBA Germany 2012 (13.04.2012)
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/2012
EDRi-gram: Big Brother Awards Germany 2011 (6.04.2011)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.7/bba-germany-2011
(Contribution by Sebastian Lisken, EDRi member FoeBuD)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Der Tag, an dem sich der Hadopi-Strom in die Piratenbucht ...
On 16 April 2012, the HADOPI Authority published a study on economic models of streaming and downloading services and websites of illegal content (notwithstanding the fact that the content is legal). Included in the study is a list of the 25 most popular unauthorised streaming sites in France. By doing so, they fulfilled essentially the same service for users of unauthorised streaming services that the Pirate Bay provides for users of (both authorised and unauthorised) peer-to-peer filesharing.
Locating the files that have been made available by other users is the key element enabling people to share files on peer-to-peer networks. This indexing function is provided by a wide variety of technologies and services, one of which is The Pirate Bay.
While identifying peer to peer resources is quite easy, identifying a comprehensive list of reliable streaming sites is more complicated. Search engines are only partly reliable and a lot of trial and error is needed to find the right search terms and sites that are still online, as they move around quite often. HADOPI has therefore jumped into this gap in the market and has provided the list for anyone looking for reliable and popular services.
A similar service is also available from the US Trade Representative of the US government (it seems reasonable to think that the policy was copied by HADOPI), which produces a periodic “notorious markets” report. That service, while not providing as much helpful information regarding streaming offers, usefully provides a categorised list of sites that are available for people who wish to access unauthorised content. The categories include “pay-per-download,” “linking,” “BitTorrent indexing,” “BitTorrent tracking,” and “live sports telecast piracy”. At the time of writing, the US administration has not stated whether or not “indexing of streaming sites” will be added to the list of “notorious markets”. If it does, the USTR would obviously find itself in a situation where it would be duty-bound to seek to destroy itself. Whether or not it would seek to have HADOPI shut down first is unclear.
These phenomena are nothing new. Initiatives to prevent unauthorised access to content have, of course, a glowing and illustrious history of helping users gain unauthorised access to content. In 2005, the Belgian Internet Service Providers Association signed a protocol with the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry to remove any USENET newsgroups (up to five per week and 20 per month) at the simple say-so of IFPI. Removal of a newsgroup simply means that it is removed from USENET service of that particular ISP, but it remains accessible via other ISPs or independent USENET services.
Every time a set of newsgroups was identified by IFPI as being a particularly rich source of unauthorised content and was removed by ISPA members, users were able to track which newsgroups were removed. Lists of these newsgroups where then regularly published online by users – allowing them to use IFPI's research to immediately find the best places for unauthorised content and download the content.
This proved a particularly popular service but, for reasons that are somewhat unclear, IFPI ultimately stopped providing this service and all trace of the protocol have disappeared from both the ISPA and IFPI websites.
The IFPI annual report 2006 referred to the “vital role of consumer education” in dealing with illegal “file swapping”. It is not clear whether they meant education on where to find the best unauthorised content or education about why they shouldn't access the content identified and publicised as a result of IFPI's actions or, in the meantime, the actions of the USTR and HADOPI.
Study of HADOPI: Study of the economical model of the websites or
services that offer streaming or direct downloads of illegal
contents(only in French, 21.03.2012) - see especially page 26
http://www.hadopi.fr/sites/default/files/page/pdf/Rapport_IDATE.pdf
USTR Report:Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets (28.02.2011)
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/2595
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
9 June 2012:Europe wide action day against ACTA!
http://wiki.stoppacta-protest.info/Main_Page
https://www.youtube.com/user/stopactaeurope?feature=watch
European Commission consults on rules for wirelessly connected devices -
the "Internet of Things"
Deadline: 12 July 2012
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=IoTGovernance
acy-campa
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
The Digital Public Domain (2012)
http://www.communia-association.org/wp-content/uploads/the_digital_pub...
Policy Guidelines for the development and promotion of Open Access by
Alma Swan (2012)
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002158/215863e.pdf
2011 Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
(16.04.2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/2011-report-funda...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
26-28 April 2012, Belgrade, Serbia
SHARE 2 Conference
http://www.shareconference.net/en
2-4 May 2012, Berlin, Germany
Re:Publica 2012: ACTION!
http://re-publica.de/12/en
9 June 2012:Europe wide action day against ACTA!
http://wiki.stoppacta-protest.info/Main_Page
14-15 June 2012, Stockholm, Sweden
EuroDIG 2012
http://www.eurodig.org/
18-22 June 2012, Samos, Greece
Samos 2012 Summit on Open Data for Governance, Industry and Society
Academic Papers Submission Deadline: 29 April 2012
http://samos-summit.blogspot.com/
20-22 June 2012, Paris, France
2012 World Open Educational Resources Congress
http://www.unesco.org/webworld/en/oer
24-29 June 2012, Prague, Czech Republic
ICANN 44 meeting
http://prague44.icann.org/
2-6 July 2012, Budapest, Hungary
Policies and Practices in Access to Digital Archives: Towards a New
Research and Policy Agenda
http://www.summer.ceu.hu/sites/default/files/course_files/Policies-and...
9-10 July 2012, Barcelona, Spain
8th International Conference on Internet Law & Politics: Challenges and
Opportunities of Online Entertainment
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2012/cfp/?lang=en
11-13 July 2012, Vigo, Spain
The 12th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium
(PETS 2012)
http://petsymposium.org/2012/
12-14 September 2012, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Building Institutions for Sustainable Scientific, Cultural and genetic
Resources Commons.
http://biogov.uclouvain.be/iasc/index.php
7-10 October 2012, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2012 Amsterdam Privacy Conference
http://www.ivir.nl/news/CallforPapersAPC2012.pdf
25-28 October 2012, Barcelona, Spain
Free Culture Forum 2012
http://fcforum.net/
6-9 November 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan
Seventh Annual IGF Meeting: "Internet Governance for Sustainable Human,
Economic and Social Development"
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
9-11 November 2012, Fulda, Germany
Digitalisierte Gesellschaft - Wege und Irrwege
FIfF Annual Conference in cooperation with Fuldaer Informatik Kollquium
http://www.fiff.de/2012