Extensive research commissioned by BITKOM, the German industry association for information technology, telecommunications and new media, into the current practices in the telecom sector shows that there are no grounds for the proposed regime of mandatory traffic data retention. The study compares the legal obligations and practices in Austria, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, the UK and the US. The main two conclusions are that the EU proposal to store all traffic data for a period of at least 12 months is disproportional, and that there is no evidence that law enforcement needs data older than 3 months.
Few countries have a legal obligation to store traffic data for purposes of law enforcement and national security. None of the examined countries have an obligation to store 'all traffic data'. In the USA there is no legal obligation at all for mandatory data retention. The US authorities believe data preservation of individual suspects is adequate. Some attempts to introduce data retention were dismissed by Congress as too far reaching. In the UK, Sweden and Austria there is no obligation to store traffic data. In France, Italy and Spain general framework legislation was introduced, but not yet translated into a specific list of data. In Italy the retention period of 2 years only applies to telephony (fixed and mobile). In the Netherlands, there is only a specific obligation for operators of prepaid mobile phones to store location data for a period of 3 months.
The range of the planned EU-wide data retention goes far beyond the data stored so far by telecommunication companies for business purposes, writes BITKOM. Storage takes place mainly for accounting purposes and for the supply of services. Because of privacy and security legislation, companies would not have the possibility to use the data profitably for their own purposes. Data retention would therefore exclusively serve non-business purposes, with according high costs.
BITKOM has not been able to detect any systematic study into the effectiveness of mandatory data retention. They conclude the need is doubtful. The few existing statistics show that traffic data older than 3-6 months are hardly requested by law enforcement agencies. Any obligation to store data beyond the present practices is thus hard to justify.
Most countries offer some cost remuneration regulation. To prevent disadvantages in the international competition for enterprises in individual member states, BITKOM suggests the EU should also include a rule for comprehensive reimbursement of costs, which also takes investments into account.
BITKOM also refers to the massive protest from data protection authorities and civil right organisations, and the critical conclusions from the open workshop organised by the European Commission (see EDRI-gram 2.18). The recommendations from the European Commission are still not available, but the ministers of Justice and Home Affairs have already taken the proposal a step further to include all traffic data (see next article).
Summary BITKOM research (in German, October 2004)
http://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/Zusammenfassung_Studie_VDS.pdf
Complete BITKOM research (in German, October 2004) )
http://www.bitkom.org/files/documents/Studie_VDS_final_lang.pdf
Revision 1 14190/1/04, Dutch Presidency to the Article 36 Committee (08.11.2004) )
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14190-re01.en04.pdf
EDRI-gram 2.18, Brussels workshop on telecom data retention (22.09.2004) )
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.18/workshop
EDRI-gram 2.23, Data retention in EU JHA Council (02.12.2004) )
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.23/retention
The draft Framework Decision on the retention of traffic data resulting from electronic communication has been sent to the European Parliament at the beginning of December. This started the public part of the lawmaking process. But the Council of the European Union has still failed to declassify the very document that the Parliament is supposed to vote on next spring.
On 2 December 2004 the ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, united in the JHA Council, decided to focus on an extended obligation to store telecom traffic data. Instead of an obligation to store traffic data already processed by companies for billing or internal company purposes, a majority in the Council is now in favour of an obligation to collect and store all traffic data for law enforcement purposes. This includes for example location data collected when using a mobile phone, history of web sites visited, IP numbers of partners contacted in Instant Messaging services, as well addressees and senders of all e-mails sent and received. This data will have to be collected by ISPs and telecom providers, but standardised interfaces will facilitate access for law enforcement and intelligence services. With methods of data mining, the data can be assembled into detailed personality profiles, including contacts, travels, shopping habits, political, religious and sexual likes and dislikes, for all users of electronic communication.
The last version of an internal communication between the Council and the so-called Article 36 Committee - a body composed of senior officials who prepare Justice and Home Affairs legislation - was made partially available to the public. This document shows another shift in approach from the Council; the purpose of investigation, detection and prosecution of 'terrorist and other serious crimes' was deleted from the proposal. Footnote 4 says: "Most delegations are against a limitation to certain categories of criminal offences. Therefore the words “terrorist and other serious” used in COPEN 122 should be deleted." This may result in the use of personality profiles from data retention being authorised even in the case of minor infringements.
The European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) has appointed a rapporteur for the data retention report. 31-year old Alexander Nuno Alvaro is a German liberal (FDP), serving a first term in the European Parliament. His party is represented in the ALDE (liberal) group in Parliament. Under the EU's three-pillar scheme of lawmaking, harmonisation of law enforcement is part of the third pillar and the sole competence of member states' governments. The European Parliament is only formally consulted about the proposal, and cannot veto or change it. As the Council's retention scheme implies an obligation to industry actors - ISPs and telcos - to store the data, it is questionable, however, whether the report doesn't touch First Pillar issues and should be in the co-decision procedure, where the Parliament has much more of a say. When the Privacy Directive of 2002 was debated in Parliament, many MEPs already opposed adopting Article 15, which allows member states to introduce legal measures for data retention, because it introduces third pillar issues in a first pillar Directive.
European Parliament Legislative Observatory Procedure File - Combating crime: prevention of crime, criminal offences and terrorism, retention of data processed on public communications networks. Initiative France, Ireland, Sweden and United Kingdom
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/oeil/oeil_ViewDNL.ProcedureView?lang=2&am...
Council Presidency to Article 36 Committee: Draft Framework Decision on the retention of data processed and stored in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or data on public communications networks for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime and criminal offences including terrorism. (8.11.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14190-re01.en04.pdf
EDRI-member IRIS chronology of data retention proposals (in French)
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/retention/
(Thanks to Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU Affairs Director)
In a response to the European Commission on 9 December 2004, EDRI welcomes the creation of a Human Rights Agency within the European Union.
"The creation of the Agency is especially relevant at a time when, one the hand, many new EU countries have joined through the expansion of member states from 15 to 25 countries and, on the other hand, the European legislation is extending its scope to new fields and sectors, especially those relevant to the third pillar," EDRI states.
In the response EDRI stresses that since human rights issues cross-cut all policy areas of the European Union the creation of one central Agency must be complemented with more effective human rights mainstreaming in all EU policy areas and activities.
EDRI suggests that the Human Rights Agency focuses on:
1. Strengthening and promoting the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law within the member states, and in the EU institutions and work areas. 2. Assessing human rights compliance of new EU directives and policies, including the human rights compliance of their transposition in the member states. 3. Utilising and strengthening existing networks of national monitoring and reporting with regard to human rights problems in EU member states, not least concerning diverging implementation of EU directives. 4. Developing tools to assess human rights compliance and impact.
According to EDRI the Agency should establish effective co-operation with the many other actors in the human rights field, both at national, regional and international level.
In relation to human rights compliance, EDRI suggest that an important role of the Agency could be to contribute to harmonising and improving the national assessment of human rights protection by defining human rights indicators and conducting impact studies. This would require analysis of how human rights are affected by the use of technology, how the core of a given right is potentially threatened and/or strengthened, whether the societal changes call for a more dynamic interpretation of some right, and not least to what extent the existing system of protection is adequate and effective given the new developments.
Draft proposal of the Human Rights Agency (25.10.2004) http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/fundamen...
EDRI response (09.12.2004)
http://www.edri.org/issues/EU/HRagency
(Contribution by Rikke Frank Joergensen, EDRI-member Digital Rights Denmark)
Contrary to expectations which already saw the majority of the Council of the European Union shifting to opposing software patents, the Council seems to be taking preparations to adopt its much contested draft Common Position, dating from 26 May 2004, during one of its meetings in the week before Christmas. The current Dutch Presidency of the EU seems to be so eager to have the document passed during its term that the paper is likely to be adopted either during the Environment Council on 20 December or the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21-22 December, just because there will be no more other Council meetings before the end of the year.
The adoption of a Common Position does however not mean that, as a recent Slashdot article says, the Council will manage to 'circumvent' the European Parliament. In the co-decision procedure, the adoption of a Common Position just sends out a strong signal to the Parliament that the Council will remain stubborn.
The Dutch effort to push the Common Position comes as a surprise after a decision taken in the Dutch National Parliament on 1 July 2004. A more than two-thirds majority revoked the country's initial positive vote on the document and asked government to withhold approval. In addition, the Dutch Presidency has applied considerable diplomatic pressure onto the government of the Republic of Poland, another patent-sceptic country, not to demand a vote on the Common Position. The Polish government has already signalled that it will not hinder consensus.
An urgent debate in the economical affairs committee of the Dutch Lower House today did not bring any further clarification about the date of the possible adoption of the Common Position. The State Secretary of Economical Affairs, Ms van Gennip, said the Dutch government would bring out a unilateral statement during the Council meeting expressing the concerns of the Dutch parliament. The statement was still in preparation, she said, but would meet all of Parliament's concerns. Since there will be no vote on the A-item, she said, the Netherlands don't have to abstain from voting.
Common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (18.11.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st11/st11979.en04.pdf
Addendum 1 (Draft statement of the Council's reasons) (24.11.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st11/st11979-ad01.en04.pdf
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - Common position - Statement of the Council's reasons (10.12.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14574.en04.pdf
Addendum 1: Statements for entry in the Council Minutes by the Commission, by Hungary, and by the Netherlands (10.12.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14574-ad01.en04.pdf
Addendum 1. Correction 1 (Revised translation of Statement by the Netherlands, 14.12.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14574-ad01co01.en04....
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 September 2003 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2003/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (As voted on 24.9.2003; date of publication: 26.3.2004)
http://europa.eu.int/cgi-bin/eur-lex/udl.pl?REQUEST=Seek-Deliver&L...
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU Affairs Director)
The French digital economy law (Loi pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique or LEN) recently entered into force. The first 2 court cases already demonstrate noxious effects of the law. As feared by French civil rights organisations like EDRI-member IRIS, the Human Rights League and others, the LEN creates judicial insecurity for French website editors and ISPs and legitimises private justice. Before the LEN, only courts could decide on take-down of websites (See EDRI-gram 2.12).
The first decision occurred in a defamation case. The French insurance company Groupama filed a case against an individual who maintained a web page with allegations of swindling by the company. The web page was accessible through equally defamatory URL names. Groupama was also suing the ISP, Free, as alleged defamation co-author, until Free decided to temporarily block access to the content. Free had received a notice by Groupama following the LEN ISP liability provisions (article 6), and made the commitment to definitely remove the site after a court decision. The court recognised the defamation by the web page editor and decided that the content must be removed as well as the URLs. Since the ISP had complied with the LEN provisions it was not found to be liable.
This decision shows that the Constitutional Council reservations on ISP liability provisions of the LEN are not enough protection against private censorship, contrarily to what the Council claimed and to what was reported by some observers (See EDRI-gram 2.22). The reservations require that the content should be 'manifestly' illegal to be taken down by the ISP, and the Council claimed that this obviously doesn't concern defamation and intellectual property violation cases. From this case it clearly appears that it does.
The second decision is about Wanadoo's refusal to take-down the website of the Turkish consulate in France, following a request by CDCA, the Armenian National Committee in France. The text of the decision, now made available, shows an interesting reasoning from the ISP and from the court regarding the LEN. While the court found that Wanadoo was right since there is no provision in French, European or International law punishing the Armenian genocide denial (although France passed a law recognising its reality), its interpretation of the LEN contradicts all the claims by the French government and the majority in the Parliament that they provided enough safeguards in the law.
According to the court Wanadoo considered itself notified by CDCA, even though the 'notification procedure' provided by the LEN had not been followed. This procedure is a prerequisite to justify that the ISP has the actual knowledge of allegedly illegal or unlawful content it hosts. In addition, the court acknowledged that the ISP had asked another court for advice on the nature of this content. Furthermore, the court said that Wanadoo 'couldn't ignore the legislation related to the Armenian genocide, being the host provider of the website of the Turkish consulate'. Although this has no impact in this particular case, this interpretation may well determine the future, since it considers that an ISP has an editorial responsibility on the content hosted, just like in the press and the audio-visual industry.
Although one cannot infer much from just two cases, they form an indication that, most probably, the LEN wont lead to a solid jurisprudence orientation, and consequently wont be able to avoid judicial insecurity and privatised censorship. More importantly, there is no public information on all the private decisions made by providers to block access to or entirely remove web-sites.
Court decision in the Groupama case (in French, 09.07.04)
http://www.legalis.net/jurisprudence-decision.php3?id_article=1233
Court decision in the CDCA case (in French, 15.11.04)
http://www.foruminternet.org/telechargement/documents/tgi-par20041115....
EDRI-gram 2.12, Notice and take down procedure validated in French law (16.06.04)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number212/len
EDRI-gram 2.22, No take-down website Turkish consulate (17.11.04)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.22/takedown
(Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
Research by Forrester, commissioned by the Business Software Alliance, shows an incredibly high number of Europeans that use spam to buy computer software, clothes/jewellery and travel/leisure products. In France, Germany and the UK, 1 in every 5 internet users said they had bought one of these things via spam. The poll was simultaneously conducted in Brazil, Canada and the US, under 1.000 online respondents per country. Brazil tops the chart of purchases in every category.
Usually, a maximum response rate of 1 in every 10.000 spam mails is assumed, but the Forrester poll indicates at least 20% of all the spam mails is actually read. The Business Software Alliance assumes most of the spamvertised software is illegal, and offers 10 tips for consumers to detect 'software spam scams', including the tip to report piracy to the BSA.
BSA: 1 in 5 British Consumers Buy Software from Spam (09.12.2004)
http://www.bsa.org/uk/press/newsreleases/online-shopping-tips.cfm
On 30 November 2004 the Swiss mobile operator Swisscom has disconnected aproximately 130.000 unregistered users of prepaid mobile phones. On 23 June 2004 a new measure was adopted by the Swiss Bundesrat (Council of ministers) that required the operators (besides Swisscom also Orange and Sunrise) to start registering the personal details of all buyers, including ID-number, and store these personal data for 2 years. By the end of October 2004 the details of all customers that had bought prepaid phones since 1 November 2002 had to be registered.
The law was introduced as a measure against terrorism and international drug trafficking, after it became public that some al-Qaeda militants had used Swiss prepaid phones to communicate with each other. It is not evident that registration will prevent such use in the future, or prevent any other kind of criminals from contacting each other. People determined to hide from police investigations can always present false identity papers or use foreign Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards.
Obviously, the mobile operators didn't succeed in reaching everybody in time. According to the Federal Statistics Office, there were almost 2.6 million users of prepaid phones in Switzerland by the end of 2003. The operators could only reach their customers by sending a text message, but the operators complained many mobile phone users don’t read text messages, or have their phones switched off for long periods.
A similar proposal was made in Poland, in June 2004, by the Polish Ministry of Infrastructure, but Parliament did not approve of it. The Polish Telecommunication Act was enacted at 16 July 2004 and went into force early in September 2004, without any obligation to register users of prepaid phones or identify current users.
130.000 Prepaid-Handys abgeschaltet (02.12.2004)
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,330625,00.html
Changes in the Swiss wiretapping law, VÜPF (23.06.2004)
http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/as/2004/3383.pdf
EDRI-gram 2.11, Polish proposal to demand ID for pre-paid cards (02.06.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number211/prepaid
(Thanks to q/depesche, EDRI-member quintessenz and Piotr Waglowski, ISOC Poland)
The European Commission has adopted, on 7 December 2004, its annual report on the implementation of the EU electronic communications regulatory package. The report states that 20 of the EU's present 25 Member States have notified the Commission that they have adopted primary legislation transposing the package, which became law in 2002. The Commission has launched infringement proceedings against Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, and Luxembourg, who have so far failed to notify transposition. All of these countries have failed to transpose the 2002 e-Privacy Directive, which is part of the package.
The Staff Working Paper attached to the report examines in particular three issues from the e-Privacy Directive, which are according to the Commission "most debated in the market and by national authorities, and which may have a significant impact on the consumer": Data retention, spam, and cookies.
Concerning traffic data, the report recalls Article 5(1) of the e-Privacy Directive, which requires that confidentiality be guaranteed not only for the content of communications but also for the related traffic data, and Article 6, which requires that service and network providers erase traffic data when they are no longer needed for the transmission of a communication or for billing purposes. In addition, Article 9 allows for location data other than traffic data to be used only with the consent of the user. None of these limitations have been transposed in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Luxembourg and Belgium; the Latvian rules for dealing with traffic data will be examined more closely by the Commission.
The report states that there is a "considerable increase of the interest in the use (and retention) of traffic data by law enforcement authorities", sometimes exceeding even the wide limits of the disputed Article 15 of the e-Privacy Directive. It names the examples of Denmark and Poland, who log traffic data for one year, and of Italy, where telecommunication data must be retained for 2 years and may be stored for another 24 months in cases of crimes against electronic systems and for reasons related to organised crime or terrorism. The Commission states: "This period of retention is one of the longest in Europe. Operators have complained about the fact that they will have to bear heavy costs for data storage." Finland even stores for two years, and for all kinds of electronic communication, information on the time of the processing, the duration of the processing and the person who processed the data. As is the case in Italy and some other countries, "operators have complained about the fact that they have to bear additional costs for such data storage".
The report states: "Besides the need to maintain proportionality as between the length of retention periods, the intrusion on privacy and the actual need for the traffic data for law enforcement purposes, it is also necessary to keep in mind the costs to be borne by operators. The economic impact of traffic data retention periods increases as the retention period gets longer. In addition there has been an increase in the number of request from law enforcement authorities to retrieve certain data."
Commission Communication 'European Electronic Communications Regulation and Markets 2004' (02.12.2004)
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/all_about/im...
Commission Staff Working paper SEC(2004)1535 Volume 1
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/all_about/im...
Volume 2 (market overview)
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/all_about/im...
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU Affairs Director)
In Bulgaria, proponents of open source and open standards have booked a remarkable legal victory. On 7 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court ruled against the minister of state administration, Dimitar Kalchev. Two members of parliament and the foundation 'Access to Information Program' had demanded access to the 2002 agreement between Microsoft and the Bulgarian government on renting 30.000 copies of MS Windows XP and MS Office XP.
A jury of 3 decided to grant access to the document. Government has announced they will appeal the decision, and take it to a 5-member jury. Until then, the document will not be made available.
News item about the verdict (in Bulgarian, 09.12.2004)
http://portal.bg/news.php?cat=main&read=20040912002
(Contribution by Veni Markovski, EDRI-member ISOC Bulgaria)
The Article 29 Working Party of data protection authorities in the EU has developed an interesting and useful model for a standard EU privacy notice, consisting of a short, a condensed and a full legal notice.
Under the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC data subjects must be informed of their rights to data protection. The Directive distinguishes between essential and further information. Essential is information about the identity of the controller and of his representative, if any, as well as the purpose of the data processing. 'Further information' includes the recipient of the data, the response obligation and the existence of access and rectification rights, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are collected. Going beyond this, there is also a third category of information which is nationally required and goes beyond the Directive’s requirements. This includes information such as the name or address of the data protection commissioner, details of the database and reference to local laws.
The Working Party concludes from several Eurobarometer surveys that a minority of businesses complies with privacy legislation and only 42% of European citizens is aware they should be informed about the identity and purpose of data collection. To help further acceptance, the WP now gives 3 concrete models and examples for the most common processing tasks carried out both on-line and of-line.
The short notice must contain the identity of the controller and the purposes of processing. The Working Party suggests sometimes even pictograms can provide the necessary notice to the concerned persons, for example to indicate hidden RFID-tags or the installation of video-cameras. The second, condensed notice, must contain all the relevant information to ensure people are well-informed about their rights and choices, and must be made available on-line as well as in hard copy via written or phone request. Finally, the third national layer must include all national legal requirements and specificities, and may include a full privacy statement.
Opinion on More Harmonised Information Provisions (25.11.2004)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2004/wp1...
The European Commission has published the contributions to the public consultation on the copyright and related right directives. 126 contributions are available, ranging from all kinds of right-holders to civil society. Most contributions are available in English, some in French and German. The contributions from the right-holders provide interesting insight in the arguments used to convince the Commission to extend the term of related rights from 50 to 95 years, claiming Europe should harmonise with the United States. The MPA contribution (United States Motion Picture Association) is especially worth close-reading, insisting Europe should introduce mandatory data retention for law enforcement purposes (where the United States themselves have no such obligation). "There is, thus, a need for harmonized, proportionate data retention rules that apply to all relevant service providers, together with additional measures to streamline the process for ensuring access to data on a cross-border basis. It is also essential that the adoption of new data retention rules does not undermine the rights of access to data provided in the Enforcement Directive."
Consultation on the review of EU legislation on copyright and related rights
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyright/review/consult...
EDRI, FIPR and VOSN response to the consultation (31.10.2004)
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/copyright
Public consultation on new action plan eEurope 2005-2010. Participants are invited to consider how European Information Society policy should evolve over the next five years if the EU is to reach its 'Lisbon Goals' by 2010.
Contributions are invited by e-mail and should be submitted by 16 January 2005.
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/2010_c...
Lisbon goals portal site
http://europa.eu.int/comm/lisbon_strategy/index_en.html
27-29 December 2004, Berlin, Germany
21C3: The Usual Suspects, 21st Chaos Communication Congress
http://www.ccc.de/congress/2004/index.en.html
Congress Schedule
http://www.ccc.de/congress/2004/fahrplan.en.html
13-14 January 2005, Berlin, Germany
3rd DRM Conference
Registration Deadline: 20th December 2004
http://digital-rights-management.org/
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
16 January 2005, Deadline EC consultation
Public consultation on the new action plan eEurope 2005-2010
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/eeurope/2005/all_about/2010_c...
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/
25 January 2005, Brussels, Belgium
Open workshop on the foundation of an EU Human Rights Agency
Workshop registration form (in MS Word only)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/fundamen...
31 March 2005, deadline call for papers on DRM
Special session on Digital Rights Management during the 31st Euromicro conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) 2005 in Porto, Portugal. This special session is open to discuss technical, legal and business issues with DRM and the social aspects regarding users understanding and fair use. Papers should be around 6-8 pages (not exceeding 6000 words) and include an abstract.
http://www.idt.mdh.se/euromicro-2005/
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