The European Working Party of data protection authorities has finally released an opinion on the proposed retention of communication traffic data. The Working Party concludes the proposal is not acceptable within the legal framework set by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Working Party data retention deserves the same level of protection as interception. They cite jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights that decrees that all interception of telecommunications data must fulfil three fundamental criteria; a legal basis, the need for the measure in a democratic society and conformity with a legitimate and listed aim. The proposal sent to the European Council on 28 April 2004 by France, Sweden, Ireland and the UK does not meet any of these criteria, according to the data protection commissioners.
On the necessity of the measure the Working Party remarks: "Not everything that might prove to be useful for law enforcement is desirable or can be considered as a necessary measure in a democratic society, particularly if this leads to the systematic recording of all electronic communications. The framework decision has not provided any persuasive arguments that retention of traffic data to such a large-scale extent is the only feasible option for combating crime or protecting national security."
With little more than 3 pages the Opinion is very brief, but should only be considered a first step. "In view of the early stage of discussion in the relevant working party of the Council, this opinion has a preliminary character. The Working Party intends to reconsider the subject, on the basis of a revised draft, at a later stage."
Such a revised draft has already been prepared and will be discussed in the Council of ministers of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA Council) of 19 November. The document is still kept secret, but is listed in the index of the Consilium as document number 14190/1/04 REV 1 (Not publicly available).
According to the annotated agenda of the upcoming JHA Council, the debate will focus on the difference between storing existing data, and a possible obligation to gather new kinds of data, specifically for law enforcement purposes. "Considering the scope of the minimum set of data as proposed in Article 2(2) of the draft framework decision, it is of great importance to determine whether an obligation to retain data that is imposed on providers should be restricted solely to data which are retained for commercial or business purposes, or whether it should also cover data which the providers possess as part of their own business operations."
If the obligation would only see to existing data, market parties with a focus on privacy could decide to only store a minimum amount of data. Logging visited URLs would be completely out of the question, since there is hardly any provider in the world that has a legitimate business purpose to gather those data outside of their own content-range.
Another issue that will be discussed in the upcoming Council is the need of law enforcement authorities for systematic retention of the information about all incoming and outgoing communications of every citizen (in stead of concentrating on suspects of specific crimes). Both the Working Party, and earlier EDRI and Privacy International in their long paper against mandatory data retention, underline the total lack of evidence, and the conspicuous absence of law enforcement representatives from the political debate both nationally and at the European level.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 9/2004 (15.11.2004)
http://www.bfd.bund.de/Presse/pm20041115b.pdf
EDRI and Privacy International paper against data retention (15.09.2004)
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/dataretention
Annotated agenda of the JHA Council on 19.11.2004
http://www.eu2004.nl/default.asp?CMS_TCP=tcpAsset&id=6BBDE6B5E7854...
Public register of Council documents (many 'Not Available')
http://register.consilium.eu.int/
The Polish government has announced today it can not support the proposal from the EU Council for a Software Patents directive, since it is too vague, and leaves too much room for patents on pure software and business methods. This means there is no majority in the Council anymore to formally ratify the agreement that was reached on 18 May 2004. On 1 November 2004 the voting-procedure in the EU Council was modified to allow the new Member States to have equal amounts of votes. With the Polish 'NO', the Council will have to re-negotiate the draft directive once more within the Council, before being able to present it to the European Parliament for a second reading.
The text was already very problematic, due to growing political differences between government representatives of member states and members of different national parliaments. The official reason for the long delay in the ratification of the Council position was the fact that not all translations had been approved, but behind closed doors a lot of lobbying has been going on.
According to spokesperson Jan Macek of FFII Poland, the Polish refusal of the Council position will give critical member states such as Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Latvia, Denmark and Italy a chance to re-open the debate on earlier modification proposals. These proposals would bring the draft directive much more in line with the intentions of the European Parliament, but were declined by the Irish Presidency of the EU.
On 24 September 2003, the European Parliament voted against all proposals that would make software patentable and added additional safeguards, such as freedom of publication and interoperation. In January 2004, the Irish Presidency of the Council proposed a text deleting most of the amendments introduced by the Parliament and lifting restrictions to the direct patentability of computer programs, data structures and process descriptions. Under this proposed compromise, 'computer-implemented' algorithms and business methods, protocols and data formats would be inventions in the sense of patent law, and the publication of a functional description of a patented idea, even for interoperability purposes, would constitute a patent infringement.
FFII, ISOC Poland and NoSoftwarePatents.com Joint Press Release (17.11.2004)
http://kwiki.ffii.org/PolandDoesNotSupportCouncilVersionEn
Statement Polish government (last item on the page, 17.11.2004)
http://www.kprm.gov.pl/441_12649.htm
The Dutch presidency of the EU has launched a new 5 year programme for Justice and Home Affairs. The previous five year plan, the Tampere Programme, was launched under the Finnish presidency of the EU. The new 'Hague Programme' was discussed at the Brussels European Council on 4 and 5 November and will be presented by Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende to the European Parliament tomorrow, 18 November 2004.
The programme focuses on the current tendency of considering illegal migration a 'cross-border problem', along with terrorism and organised crime. Making reference to the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the U.S., and on 11 March 2004 in Madrid, it states 'a new urgency' for the security of the EU and its member states.
The means by which the EU Council hopes to achieve this security have already been abundantly discussed at earlier dates; biometrics, integration of databases, closer collaboration and operationalisation of EuroJust and EuroPol.
On biometrics, the programme wants the EU to find 'a coherent approach and harmonised solutions' for travel documents, mainly for border control purposes. This data are to be stored in a network of databases made up from the present Schengen Information System (respectively SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS) and EURODAC, if the European Commission finds these systems are sufficiently interoperable. The Commission is currently preparing a report on these systems.
The institutions that use these databases, police forces and in particular Europol, are to become more networked and more operational. Europol will work closer together with Eurojust, and it will publish, starting in January 2006, yearly 'threat assessment reports' on serious forms of crime, especially if organised cross-border. At the same time, national police forces should enhance their bi- and multilateral co-operation.
Unfortunately, while promoting cross-border co-operation of authorities and encouraging the creation and linking-up of transnational databases, the Hague Programme fails to counterbalance these measures with adequate civil rights, like better privacy protection, access to documents, more rights for the European Parliament or better access for individuals to the European Justice system.
Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council (4-5.11.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14292.en04.pdf (48 p.,
260 kB)
Statewatch analysis (prepared by Professor Steve Peers, University of
Essex, 05.11.2004)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/nov/hague-annotated-final.pdf
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU Affairs Director)
On 9 and 10 November 2004, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) and MERIT, sponsored by OSI, CEA-PME and the Greens/EFA, organised a conference in Brussels on the topic of 'Regulating Knowledge: Costs, Risks, and Models of Innovation'. Its main theme was the economic consequences of software patents, focussing on economic dynamics, insurance risks, standardisation failures and institutional interests. However, it also touched upon the democratic legitimacy of current policy making, as well as legal analysis of the current directive proposal on the patentability of 'computer-implemented inventions'.
Economic experts from the US such as Brian Kahin and Jim Bessen sketched the economic background of the debate: why do we grant patents, do these assumptions still hold true in an information economy, and how are patents used nowadays? According to them, patents are only used to protect about 15% of R&D, and while a different patent policy can increase this share, at the same time it also affects the effectiveness of the other means of protection. A balanced approach is obviously required.
Another problem is the increasing litigation, as well as its huge costs. While showing the steadily climbing curve of the number of patent-related lawsuits filed in the US, Bessen asked the audience "Who wants to climb this hill?" Kahin noted the fact that costs of patent litigation do not scale-down well. Lawsuits over assets worth less than 1 million US Dollar cost more than those assets themselves.
The problems of software patents in open standards were also discussed thoroughly. Simon Phipps presented the official Sun view on this issue: it should never be possible for patents to encumber interoperability, and 'reasonable and non-discriminatory' licenses are not a solution. The fact that these problems are not just theoretical was illustrated by Koen Martens from the IETF Sender Policy Framework workgroup. Microsoft's patents managed to largely waste more than a full year of work on this.
Insurance is often mentioned as a way for small and medium-sized enterprises to cope with the high litigation costs of the patent system, but Ian Lewis from Miller Insurance Services Ltd explained that offering such insurances is not viable. He mentioned astonishing numbers like a 3.000% loss ratio for major insurance companies trying to offer customers products in this area.
Probably the most entertaining talk of the conference was given by David Martin from M-CAM, a company specialised in assessing the values of patent portfolios and technology transfers. His thesis is that the patent system suffers from an immense integrity and accountability problem. He started out by giving an example of real world economic consequences of this fact: large US companies are missing out on huge Chinese contracts, because they previously licensed worthless patents to Chinese companies (who in turn were previously accused of 'stealing' that 'intellectual property').
Another striking example was the ethernet plug. "The degrees of freedom in a plug, Ladies and Gentlemen, are two. You've got the insulative surface, you've got the prongs. That's two degrees of freedom. The third degree of freedom is where you shove it". According to Martin, these two degrees of freedom are covered by a grand total of 683 patents. He concluded his talk with the immortal words that "If we don't actually confront the integrity problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage (...), we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."
Many other influential speakers, both from the US and from Europe, explained their view on the (software) patents issue. The economic impact was analysed using both top-down and bottom-up approaches. The Grokline initiative was presented, an open, community-based, collaborative research project on the history of the relationship between patent law and software development. Its goal is to assess whether patent law, as actually applied, has recognised true innovation. Wendy Seltzer from EFF stressed the consequences for online information availability. The merits of the various directive proposals were discussed. And most of all the need was stressed for considering patent policy as part of economic policy making, instead of handling it as a separate entity that stands on its own.
With many renowned speakers, live audio streaming and a large and interested audience, the conference was a great success.
Program, slides and audio recordings of the panel discussions (9-10.11.2004)
http://eu.ffii.org/sections/bxl0411/program/
Grokline patent project
http://grokline.net
(Contribution by Jonas Maebe, board member FFII and conference co-organiser)
A large group of UK-based rights organisations, including EDRI-member FIPR and Privacy International, has launched a formal e-petition against governmental plans to introduce ID-cards. The petition (open to UK residents only) closes at 19 November, timed to precede the speech of the Queen on 23 November 2004. Almost 1.000 individuals have endorsed the petition, that calls on the Prime Minister and the government to immediately cease all further development of, and legislation for, national identity cards and the National Identity Register.
The petition says: "We believe the proposals constitute an attack on individual rights and freedoms. We believe they will lead to institutional discrimination and to unfair and unlawful denial of benefits and services. We believe the proposals will lead to an increase in state control and surveillance over the individual, and that they will create an unacceptable imposition on every citizen."
Popular support for ID-cards is rapidly dropping. According to statistics from the Home Office, this summer only 31% of the public was in favour, but a considerably higher 48% was against. This won't stop the government from introducing it rapidly, in the Queen's speech. Mark Littlewood, National Co-ordinator of the NO2ID coalition, says: "Rumour has it that Tony Blair and David Blunkett will try to slip their ID card proposal in through the back door by losing it in the detail of anti-crime, anti-terrorist legislation."
Petition against ID-card
http://www.no2id-petition.net
Home office statistics (page 12, October 2004)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/id_summary_doc_3.pdf
Analysis Privacy International 'UK ID Card moving forward despite
significant opposition' (27.10.2004)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd³³0³=x-347-79542&...
Advocates of open source tools that use geographical data (GIS) are concerned about a new directive proposed by the European Commission on the use of governmental geospatial data. The INSPIRE Directive, adopted by the Commission in July 2004, aims to establish a spatial information infrastructure in Europe. It covers 30 broad types of data, such as (the location and the 3D descriptors of) buildings, forests, rivers, mountains, transport networks, all kinds of territorial definitions (names, postcodes, population and distribution of species) and all kinds of environmental indicators, such as occurrence of epidemics, pollution etc.
Critics say the consultation process has been unrepresentative, and fear that the proposed directive gives too much power to government data collection and licensing agencies. They argue that the directive imposes unnecessary costs and that the end result will benefit government agencies, rather than citizens or the industry. Geographic data should be made available free of licensing costs, they argue, for example to help develop grassroots level campaigns and election monitoring enhanced with geographic data and maps. Currently, in the UK for example, it costs almost 3.000 euro per year to license a simple postcode look-up service.
Spatial data forms a core high-value part of the information produced by the public sector. Though the proposed directive contains a non-prejudice clause to Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information, it seems to undermine its core principles. This 2003 Directive contains rules on transparency, standard and non-exclusive licences, appeal provisions, an upper limit for charging, etc. and is currently being implemented by member states. In contrast, the INSPIRE Directive gives responsibility to an expert group, together with Member States, to set a common geospatial data licensing and cost policy and to provide e-commerce services for 'data availability'.
The rapporteur from the European Parliament for this Directive will be the Belgian christian-democrat Mme Frederika Brepoels (EPP-ED), in the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. According to the Legislative Observatory from the European Parliament, there will only be 1 reading by Parliament, and the Committee is expected to adopt its opinion on 15 March 2005.
INSPIRE
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/geo/
Critical analysis of the INSPIRE Directive
http://space.frot.org/docs/inspire_directive.html
European Commission pages on public sector information
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm
ePSINet, European Public Sector Information Network
http://www.epsigate.org/
(Thanks to Teresa Hackett, Ireland)
Privacy International is calling on all manufacturers of phone camera's to equip the devices with a default flash, to alert people that their picture is taken. PI believes this measure is necessary to avoid endemic privacy abuse. Camera phones are increasingly used to take intimate and private images without consent, often resulting in embarrassment and harm to relationships. Such images can also be used as material for blackmail, revenge and harassment.
Numerous countries have pursued restrictive measures. Only Saudi Arabia created a complete ban on the devices, other countries such as Australia, Taiwan, the United States, the UK and Canada have adopted specific rules to prevent the use in specific places such as changing rooms, swimming pools and schools. The Ministry of Information and Communication of Korea decided last year to oblige the manufacturers to make sure the devices give a mandatory beep of at least 65 decibel whenever a picture is taken.
According to Privacy International, sound warnings, embedded by some manufacturers, won't really stop the problem, because the feature can be disabled or lightly overheard in a noisy environment. On the other hand, a mandatory flash wouldn't damage the picture, since the lens aperture can be regulated by an inbuilt light meter.
Director Simon Davies points out that the threats from phone cameras are 'substantively greater' than those arising from conventional photography. "The ability to covertly capture images and then instantly transmit those images removes any safeguard for the victim", he warns.
On Monday 15 November, the international consumer electronics association, CEA, issued a rather weak phone camera etiquette, advising users to respect other people's privacy. According to most manufacturers (excluding Nokia, not a member of this association) "Camera phones should not be used in public areas considered "private" by those who use them, for example: bathrooms, changing rooms, and gym locker rooms." So much for sauna's, swimming pools and beaches, it seems.
Press release Privacy International (16.11.2004) http://www.privacyinternational.org/mobilephonewarning
Think before you click - campaign CEA (15.11.2004) http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10610
The Unesco is working on a draft convention on cultural diversity, the Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions. The draft contains many references to copyright, intellectual property rights and access to information. On 15 November 2004 the campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) has presented a critical paper to the Unesco delegates, endorsed by many EDRI-members and other civil rights organisations.
The Unesco convention was originally designed to ensure that culture, in the age of globalized culture industries, is not reduced to a commodity. Its aim is to allow each country to implement cultural, media, and communications policies that foster cultural diversity. However, some governments have proposed dangerous revisions that would transform the draft Convention into an instrument that expands corporate ownership of culture. CRIS points out that the convention must not be made subordinate to existing or future trade agreements. Secondly, it should be designed to not only protect diversity of national and regional cultural industries, but to protect the cultural diversity and the communication rights of all peoples. Thirdly, the convention must balance any references to the protection of intellectual property rights with reference to protection of the cultural commons. Otherwise, references to intellectual property rights should be removed altogether.
Unesco draft convention
http://www.unesco.org/culture
CRIS comments
http://www.mediatrademonitor.org/cris-unesco.php
On 15 November a Paris court (Tribunal de Grand Instance) rejected a demand from the Comité de Défense de la Cause Arménienne (CDCA) to take-down a website from the Turkish consulate in France. The Turkish consul was accused by the CDCA of denying the 1915 genocide on Armenians. Both the complaint against hosting provider Wanadoo as well as the complaint against the Turkish consul failed.
The Court found that no provision in the French law specifically considers the denial of the Armenian genocide illegal, not as part of the general penal code provisions on genocide-denial, nor as a result of the specific French law from 2001 acknowledging the existence of the genocide of the Armenians.
Regarding the complaint against the Turkish consul, the Court concluded he was protected by diplomatic immunity, following the Vienna Convention of 1963. Therefore the complaint against him was found irrelevant.
The CDCA is considering an appeal to the decision. Reporters Without Borders point out in a press release issued on 17 November that this case is the first to be heard under the new legal regime for provider liability defined in the Loi sur la Confiance dans l'économie numérique (LEN). This law demands content has to be 'manifestly unlawful' in order for a provider to risk liability. On 13 June 2004 the French Constitutional Council modified the LEN, after huge protests from numerous digital rights organisations, from 'apparently' to 'manifestly' unlawful. Under French jurisprudence only very specific content can be considered 'manifestly illegal', like (holocaust) denial, pedophile images and war-crime apologies.
Still, the definition causes many problems in practice, according to RSF. The Paris court only decided the website from the Turkish consulate wasn't 'manifestly' unlawful after studying 2 French legal texts and 3 international texts.
CDCA press release (15.11.2004)
http://www.cdca.asso.fr/s/detail.php?r=0&&id=197
RSF press release (in French and English, 17.11.2004)
http://www.internet.rsf.org
EDRI-gram 2.21 'Armenian group demands take down website Turkish
consulate' (03.11.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.21/takedown
(Thanks to Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
On 12 November, the German Lower House (Bundestag) debated in plenary on the merits of individual filtering or state-ordered blocking of illegal and harmful content. Germany is the only country in Western Europe (besides Switzerland) were governmental blocking-orders were issued to providers to prevent internet users from accessing information deemed illegal or indecent. Over 80 internet providers in Nordrein-Westfalen were ordered early in 2002 by the district government of Dusseldorf to block access to 4 foreign websites with neo-nazi content. Meanwhile, 2 of the 4 websites have been dropped from the blocking-order, including the distasteful, but certainly not illegal website rotten.com. More recently, the anti-censorship activist Alvar Freude was brought to court by the same regional government of Dusseldorf for posting hyper-links to censored websites with radical right-wing content on his website.
Though all parties seemed to agree that blocking orders are a very bad solution, the Red-Green government coalition rejected a motion from the Liberal FDP that would stop any blocking-orders and in stead promote end-user filtering, international agreements and self-regulatory measures by the industry. According to a report in the German e-zine Heise, it was a purely party-political decision to vote against the motion. The CDU-representative also agreed in the debate that any call for governmental blocking-orders would be completely out of proportion. "A free society with such wide-reaching technical possibilities also demands responsibility of individuals and of the industry," said Heinrich-Wilhelm Ronsöhr, according to Heise.
On 11 April 2002 the European Parliament unanimously adopted a declaration against the use of 'blocking' as a way of regulating content on the Internet. 460 MEP's were in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions. In its adoption of the report on the protection of minors and human dignity, parliament expressed concern "that recent decisions or strategies to block access to certain websites may result in the fragmentation of Internet access or the denial of access to legitimate content and therefore is not an effective European solution for combating illegal and harmful Internet content."
The report on the new Safer Internet Plus Programme, adopted unanimously by the Europarl Committee on Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on 16 November 2004, takes this view one step further. Blocking is not even considered an option, but filtering is not the holy grail either. From a strong focus on end-user empowerment the report stresses the need to take privacy principles into account when using filter programs. Also, in stead of financing the development of filter tools, LIBE wishes to dedicate funding to the performance and transparency of filter technologies. Adding to the transparency of the hotline system, the report demands that "the number and kind of webpages withdrawn by internet service providers as a result of information provided by the hotlines should be made public if possible." Also, internet providers are encouraged to handle Notice and Take Down requests in a transparent and conscientious matter.
Finally, the report adds an important dimension to the debate about harmful content. "It would be desirable to try to take account of the possible effect of new technologies, on their safe use by children when they are being developed, instead of trying to deal with any consequences of the new technologies after they have been devised. (...) However, it should be taken into account that not every product developed for the online world is intended for use by children."
Heise, 'Bundestag streitet über Web-Sperrungen und Filter' (12.11.2004)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/53214
LIBE report on Safer Internet Plus Programme 2005-2008, 2004/0023(COD)
(16.11.2004)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/PR/542/542475/...
The European Court of Justice has decided to diminish the legal protection of so called 'spin-off' databases under the Database Directive 1996/9/EC. In order to claim 'sui generis' database protection, a substantial investment must be made "in seeking, collecting, verifying and presenting existing materials". The resources used to create the materials which make up the database can _not_ be counted as substantial investment. In other words; if a database is a logical spin-off of your main activity, the data cannot be protected against use by third parties. These verdicts juxtapose the opinion of the Advocate General, issued on 8 June 2004.
The parties involved in the 4 cases are the British Horseracing Board (BRB) versus William Hill and Fixtures Marketing Ltd (football fixture lists) versus football pools operators in Finland, Sweden and Greece. Advocate General Stix-Hackl found that the database rights of the plaintiffs (BRB and Fixtures Marketing) were infringed by the bookmakers.
In the case of football fixture lists the Court finds it does not require any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues to make up such a list. "Those activities are indivisibly linked to the creation of those data, in which the leagues participate directly as those responsible for the organisation of football league fixtures."
In the case of the horse races, the Court similarly acknowledges the database right of the British Horseracing Board, but finds William Hill only uses insubstantial parts, since they only use parts of the database that do not require separate substantial investments.
Press release Curia verdict in cases C-46/02, C-203/02, C-338/02 and
C-444/02 (09.11.2004)
http://www.curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/cp04/aff/cp040089en.pdf
The British Horseracing Board v William Hill (09.11.2004)
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79958890...()
EDRI-gram 2.15 'Opinion European Court of Justice: perpetual rights for
databases' (04.08.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number215/databases
The magazine 'Surveillance & Society' has a special double issue online about the politics and practice of CCTV. Under the title 'The Politics of CCTV in Europe and Beyond' the magazine examines the extraordinarily fast growth of closed circuit television (CCTV) in western societies. Papers on regulation and governance and a large number of case studies describe various aspects of the the growth in the use of CCTV, from its use in the private sector, public spaces, large scale 'open street' CCTV and gradually its ubiquitous presence. The editors question the motives to implement CCTV on such a large scale: "The extent to which such measures do anything to protect from further tragedies is questionable, but largely irrelevant. For politicians, there is a need to be seen to be doing something."
Surveillance & Society: The Politics of CCTV in Europe and Beyond
(edited by Clive Norris, Mike McCahill and David Wood)
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/cctv.htm
18-20 November 2004, Berlin, Germany
UN ICT Task Force Meeting and Global Forum on Digital Development
The UN ICT Task Force will have its seventh meeting in Berlin on 19 and
20 November 2004. The first one and a half days will consist of a Global
Forum on 'Promoting an enabling environment for digital development' that
is open to qualified civil society experts. Civil society groups are
organising a series of open workshops and events around the Task Force
meeting. Most of them will take place on 18 November.
UN ICT Task Force website and registration info
http://www.unicttaskforce.org
Civil Society events
http://www.worldsummit2005.org
25 November 2004, Budapest, Hungary
Fourth annual Big Brother Awards ceremony in Hungary
http://www.bigbrotherawards.hu/
14 January 2005, Athens, Greece
ePSINet Policy Conference on re-use of Public Sector Information in
Europe. The aim of the conference is to provide a forum for policy makers,
public content providers, re-users and international experts to discuss
the prospects for adding value through commercial exploitation of public
sector information. The conference will also act as a progress check on
the early implementation of the European Directive on PSI re-use,
published late in 2003, and discuss the future agenda. Registration is
free for the first 150 participants.
http://www.epsigate.org/conf.htm
21 January 2005, Paris, France, Big Brother Awards
The organising committee of the French Big Brother Awards is inviting the
public to nominate people, institutions and governments that have excelled
in violating privacy and enhancing control. The French have opened a new
category, for nominations in the 'Novlang/Newspeak Award', dedicated to
public manipulation of the masses aimed at making people docile to
control, surveillance, tagging and tracing their private lives.
Public nominations French Big Brother Awards
http://candidats.bigbrotherawards.eu.org/
12-15 April 2005, Seattle, USA, CFP 2005
The program committee of the annual Computer, Freedom, Privacy Conference
is accepting proposals for conference sessions and speakers for CFP2005.
The deadline for submissions is 31 December 2004. The conference will be
held in the Westin Hotel in Seattle, Washington.
http://www.cfp2005.org