In other times, events as those taking place in Turkey now would have probably been much unknown to the rest of the world. But, over the past several years, social media has developed spectacularly and with it, its role in promoting, organizing and responding to protest and revolution.
The protests taking place in Turkey, organized initially in response to government plans to build a new mall on a green space in the centre, have turned into a demonstration against the government’s policies.
The fight between the Turkish government and the demonstrating citizens has not taken place only in the streets but also in the social media. A huge amount of tweets mentioning hashtags related to the protest have been sent. One of the reasons for this flood of tweets is a reaction to the lack of coverage in the Turkish media which has been practically absent. Turkish protesters have begun live-tweeting the protests and using smart-phones to live stream video of the protests while urging Turks to turn off their televisions in protest over the lack of coverage.
The Turkish government reacted by trying to increase censorship over the online media and by also using the social media via twitter accounts of government members. The Prime Minister as well as many of the ministers used their own strategy to accuse protesters of disinformation.
“There is this curse called Twitter. It’s all lies … That thing called social media is the curse of society today,” said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.
According to TechCrunch, both Facebook and Twitter, have been almost impossible to access from inside Istanbul, and other parts of Turkey. “They throttled the bandwidth to the bare minimum so that officially it’s not blocked, but it’s not loading any more… it looks like the government is reducing the speed using TTNET which is the ISP they control,” said an anonymous source. 3G networks have also been blocked. Turkey’s telecoms regulator argued the access problems were related to traffic surge rather than an official block, which would require a court order.
EDRi member Alternative Informatics Association from Turkey commented on the current situation: "It is highly probable that police used special jammers to cut whole communication in designated areas. We were informed by activists that GSM connections had been broken while a police helicopter went on circles above the Taksim Square. A TTNET representative (Turkey's DSL provider monopoly, with ~90% market share) explained that they haven't cut or slow down Internet and probably the police may have been used jammers." They also said they are collecting and assessing evidence about social media censorship and other blocking issues, in order to provide a clear picture about the situation during the protests.
As a response to access problems, some local shops have removed security from their WiFi networks to allow internet access although the accessing speed was very much affected. Yet, social media has proven a significant tool that has given the protesters a means to communicate and exchange information, practically in real time, therefore allowing a more accurate description of events.
According to the news coverage, at least 24 people detained 4 and 5 June 2013 over the messages posted on Twitter. More legal details on these situations was published by Yaman Akdeniz & Kerem Altiparmak, despite the fact that further examination of the news’ details is not possible at the moment due to the confidentiality of the investigations.
Press Release on Twitter Detentions in Turkey (5.06.2013)
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rklm8g
Is there a Social-Media Fuelled Protest Style? An Analysis From #jan25
to #geziparki (1.06.2013)
http://technosociology.org/?p=1255
A Breakout Role for Twitter? Extensive Use of Social Media in the
Absence of Traditional Media by Turks in Turkish in Taksim Square
Protests (1.06.2013)
http://themonkeycage.org/2013/06/01/a-breakout-role-for-twitter-extens...
Turkish PM blasts Twitter and social media for spreading ‘lies’ during
weekend protests
(2.06.2013)
http://thenextweb.com/eu/2013/06/02/turkish-pm-blasts-twitter-and-soci...
Turkey's PM rejects 'dictator' claims, calls Twitter a 'menace' (1.06.2013)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/turkey-s-pm-rejects-dictator-claims-calls-...
Amid Turkey Unrest, Social Media Becomes a Battleground (3.06.2013)
http://blogs.wsj.com/middleeast/2013/06/03/amid-turkey-unrest-social-m...
As Anti-Government Protests Erupt In Istanbul, Facebook And Twitter
Appear Suddenly Throttled (1.06.2013)
http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/01/as-anti-government-protests-erupt-in-...
Alternative Informatics Association's Press release (1.06.2013)
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Ana_Sayfa#Stop_The_Police_Violen...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Netzneutralität: Neelie Kroes im Wechselbad der Gefühle
On 30 May 2013, European Commission Vice-President for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes gave a speech in front of the European Parliament calling for the need to guarantee network neutrality in Europe. During the speech she announced she would deliver a legislative package by Easter 2014. “We can't afford in Europe all the countless, needless, artificial obstacles placed in the way of a telecoms single market” said Kroes who asked for the European Parliament's support.
The request was curious, given that the Parliament has already issued two resolutions in December 2012 calling on the Commission to propose legislation to ensure net neutrality and urging Commissioner Kroes to end her "wait and see" approach.
Kroes enthusiastically stated her intention to make a reform and get a strong single market: “I want you to be able to say that you saved their right to access the open internet, by guaranteeing net neutrality. I want to channel your knowledge and passion into the legislation needed to deliver a real single market.”
However, only a week after Commissioner requested the European Parliament for support to guarantee net neutrality, she confirmed the civil society’s concerns that her position on the issue remained problematic by her keynote address at the European Parliament organised by Access on 4 June 2013.
Kroes identified “transparency,” “consumer choice” and the "ability for consumers to switch providers “without countless obstacles” instead of net neutrality as the main paths to an open internet. “For me, an open platform is built on competition, innovation transparency, and choice,” she said.
The event of 4 June, entitled “Guaranteeing competition and the open internet in Europe,” was co-hosted by ALDE European Parliament member Marietje Schaake and EPP Parliament member Sabine Verheyen. Following Kroes’ key note speech, representatives and experts from European Institutions, civil society and industry sector groups offered expert testimony on network neutrality.
While Kroes said that the internet is a “a great place to exercise and enjoy liberty”, she seemed to agree with the idea that operators should offer different types of internet since “different users have different network needs.”
But she did cite the 2011 study by European regulators which found that that 20% of European citizens are subject to arbitrary restrictions on fixed access, with 36% on mobile connections. “It’s clear to me that many Europeans expect protection against some commercial tactics,” she said.
However, Kroes did not propose any concrete solutions to this growing problem, emphasizing that transparency over net neutrality is the key gateway to an open internet. “With genuine transparency, I doubt many consumers would care to buy such a limited product. I doubt many ISPs would dare to offer one,” she said.
Following her keynote, the Commissioner was presented with an open letter on net neutrality signed by 20 European CEOs and entrepreneurs representing a variety of online businesses. This coalition, including companies like Viber, The Next Web, Storify and WeePee, expressed support in fighting the tendencies of access operators to act as gatekeepers of the internet.
Civil society continues to advocate for a proposal that would enshrine net neutrality into law. While the possibility for action in this legislative period will end this fall, as Markus Beckedahl from the German blog Netzpolitik wrote, “it is doable. if there is a will.”
Neelie Kroes’ Speech: The politics of the completing the telecoms single
market (30.05.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-484_en.htm
Open Letter by European CEOs to the European Commission (04.06.2013)
http://www.reddit.com/r/POLITIC/comments/1fn1r7/net_neutrality_open_le...
Livestream: Guaranteeing Competition and the Open Internet in Europe
(04.06.2013)
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/livestream-guaranteeing-competition-and-...
Net Neutrality Event: Guaranteeing Competition and the Open Internet in
Europe (programme) (04.06.2013)
http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2013/05/event-guaranteeing-competition-a...
Commissioner Kroes calls for net neutrality and wants support (only in
German, 30.05.2013)
https://netzpolitik.org/2013/eu-kommissarin-kroes-fordert-netzneutrali...
Net Neutrality in Europe
http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/108784/Net-neutrality-in-Europ...
EDRi-gram: The European Parliament supports net neutrality (19.12.2012)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.24/ep-net-neutrality
(Thanks to EDRi observer Raegan MacDonald, Access)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Aufruf zum Mitmachen: Abstimmung über die Vorratsdatenspeicherung von...
On 10 June 2013, the European Parliament will decide on a EU-wide system for the retention of flight passenger data. You can contact your Members of the European Parliament and tell them to defend your right to privacy and free movement!
The proposed Directive will undermine the rights of travellers since the use and retention of PNR will limit fundamental rights, such as non-discrimination, the right of privacy and the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR). In addition, there is still no proof, that we need these data nor is there proof that these data had been useful in the past, in other countries, to fight terrorism and serious transnational crime.
The LIBE Committee had already voted it down with a clear majority of 30 to 25.
But now, the Conference of Presidents decidded to send the dossier back to the committee. We therefore urge the MEPs to vote on it on 12 June and to reject the Directive. Please contact your MEPs and ask them to reject the EU-PNR now! You can find an example mail here:
“Dear /Name of the MEP/,
On 10 June you will be deciding on the Directive on the use of Passenger Name Record (EU- PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.
The LIBE Committee, after more than two years of deliberation, came to a clear majority decision that the draft Directive should be rejected. It is now important to uphold the credibility of the European Parliament's procedures and to respect the expertise of the LIBE Committee. This can only be achieved by upholding the LIBE Committee's decision and not seeking to circumvent it by a referral back to the Committee.
The LIBE Committee decided against the Directive for the protection of fundamental rights of EU-citizens! Please consider the following issues for your decision on the EU-PNR Directive:
- The use of PNR data is disproportionate.
- The use of PNR data will limit fundamental rights, such as non-discrimination, the right of privacy and the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter and Article 8 ECHR).
- There is still no proof, that we need these data nor any proof, that these data had been useful in past in other countries to fight terrorism and serious transnational crime.
- The discussion about the EU-PNR systems shows that all travel movements of innocent individuals shall be monitored. Yet, this monitoring of travel movements of citizens takes place without an initial suspicion.
Yours sincerely, (signature)"
EDRi-gram: LIBE EP Committee: No PNR data sharing within the EU (8.05.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.9/eu-pnr-directive-rejected-libe
EDRi-gram: EU PNR directive gets funding before being adopted (16.01.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.1/eu-pnr-funding-before-adoption
NoPNR campaign
http://www.nopnr.org/
http://pnr.digitalegesellschaft.de
http://pnr.vibe.at
(Contribution by Alexander Sander - NoPNR)
The Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) held a hearing on 3 June 2013 in Strasbourg to collect views from civil society and the private sector on its plans to further extent Convention 185 provisions on transborder access to data through a draft additional Protocol. The proposal received strong criticism from most of the participant stakeholders (EDRI, ISOC, independent academics and privacy advocates, EuroISPA, and companies such as Google, Microsoft and LeaseWeb) as well as from the European Commission, the European Data Protection Supervisor, and even the Data Protection Unit from the same CoE Data Protection and Cybercrime Division. The only participant stakeholder who warmly welcomed the proposal was the Anti-Phishing Working Group, while the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) was more concerned with economic interests of businesses and the legal certainty of their operations vis-à-vis law enforcement authorities requests than by issues related with personal data protection.
Besides the T-CY bureau members (Estonia, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, UK, USA), government representatives were not very vocal and seemed to attend mainly to hear from stakeholders before the T-CY (closed) plenary meeting, scheduled on 4-5 June. South Africa reminded that privacy is a constitutional right in the country, making the CoE proposal very difficult to address. But the really notable exception was Russia, taking the floor at numerous occasions and strongly advocating against the proposal with arguments based both on international law and on privacy and personal data protection. Russia is the only CoE Member State, with San Marino, having not signed the Budapest Convention, but is apparently very proud to be the most recent State having ratified CoE Convention 108 on Data Protection. That being said, it is well known that Russia never agreed on Article 32(b) of the Cybercrime Convention, considering that its provisions would allow violations of States sovereignty.
Article 32(b) is precisely at the centre of the current CoE T-CY proposal. It deals with transborder access to stored computer data and provides that a Party to Convention 185 “may, without the authorisation of another Party, access or receive, through a computer system in its territory, stored computer data located in another Party, if the Party obtains the lawful and voluntary consent of the person who has the lawful authority to disclose the data to the Party through that computer system.” With its draft additional Protocol, the new CoE T-CY proposal basically aims at relaxing the remaining constraint for the requesting Party, currently bound by the computer system location “in its territory”.
As a result of a report prepared by an ad hoc T-CY sub-group and adopted on December 2012, this draft additional Protocol suggests different options for allowing transborder access, identified as the “unilateral access by law enforcement authorities of one State to data stored on a computer system in a foreign State without the need for mutual legal assistance”. The demand results from the increasing need to quickly and easily collect electronic evidences to fight (cyber-)crimes, especially with the development of cloud computing (which results in data location often in foreign territories or even unknown places, when it is not roaming from one territory to another), and assumes that neither Article 32(b) nor mutual legal assistance Treaties (MLAT) provisions allow to answer this need.
In substance, the 5 options provided in the draft Protocol are all based on allowing transborder access mainly through (1) consent of the data subject; (2) consent of the data controller; (3) “in good faith or in exigent or other circumstances” or (4) when the data location is unknown, replacing the concept of territory by that of “the power of disposal of data”. The discussion highlighted major problems with all such options.
First of all, the notion of consent in defined in all data protection legislation, including CoE Convention 108, as that of the data subject, and never that of the data controller. Except when provided by law, disclosure of data by the data controller might even lead to a criminal offence.
Second, the CoE proposal provides that the data subject’s consent be evaluated by the requesting Party, which obviously might infringe the data protection legislation of the State where the data is located, given the lack of harmonization of this legislation among countries, including the Cybercrime Convention Parties, that extend far beyond the Council of Europe territory. To overcome this situation, EDRI recommended as necessary pre-condition that concerned Parties ensure an adequate level of data protection in their respective legislation, for instance through the ratification of Convention 108.
Third, it also provides that the lawfulness of the transborder access authorisation be evaluated by the requesting Party as well, which would create rights and obligations to the State where the data is located, while this is against international law provisions when the latter is a third Party to the Treaty.
Fourth, allowing transborder access without consent but “in good faith or in exigent circumstances” would be a Pandora box, soon opening the way to all kinds of mission creep, especially when the simple fact that data are available somewhere seems to be seen by some as a blank check to use them in criminal proceedings, even in case of minor offences.
Fifth and last but not least, the strange proposal of replacing the concept of territorial location of data by that of “the power of disposal of data” as connecting factor to access them is, inter alia, highly dangerous for political freedoms even when intended as the power of the data subject to dispose of his/her own data. It suffices to consider cases of political activists in authoritarian States, being forced to disclose their data hosted in a more freedom-friendly country.
In addition to all these arguments raised by critics of the proposal, the discussion exposed the illegality, with regards to data protection legislation, of some provisions of the Cybercrime Convention itself and its lack of sufficient safeguards especially w.r.t. privacy and data protection, the right against self-incrimination, and the dual criminality requirement in international law. That was an interesting moment, especially for those who, like the author, were part of the Global civil society coalition running the campaign against the danger of the Cybercrime Convention back in 1999, when the first leaks of the draft text were made available…
In order to address the real and legitimate concern of LEA facing the need to collect evidence in criminal investigations, the participant stakeholders rather recommended sticking to MLAT provisions, especially the existing networks of 24/7 LEA contact points, and to find ways to overcome the current difficulties, that is, mainly bureaucracy and lack of human and technical resources. As the bureau and the secretariat stated in conclusion, this task is also part of undertaken efforts by the CoE T-CY, and further discussion will occur through future consultations and the series of Octopus conferences, this year event being scheduled on 4-6 December 2013 in Strasbourg.
CoE T-CY public hearing of civil society and private sector (03.06.2013)
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/T-CY/Pu...
CoE Convention 185 on Cybercrime (23.11.2001)
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENG&...
CoE Convention 108 on or the Protection of Individuals with regard to
Automatic Processing of Personal Data (28.01.1981)
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENG&...
Report on ‘Transborder access and jurisdiction: What are the options?’
(06.12.2012)
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/Source/Cybercrime/...
(Draft) elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on
Cybercrime regarding transborder access to data (09.04.2013)
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/Source/Cybercrime/...(2013)14transb_elements_protocol_V2.pdf
Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) against the Cybercrime
Convention (1999-2004)
http://www.treatywatch.org/
Cooperation without adequate safeguards : Issues with the CoE Convention
on cybercrime (11.06.2007)
http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/spip.php?article181
EDRI-gram: Enditorial: The 2001 Coe Cybercrime Convention More Dangerous Than
Ever (20.06.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.12/cybercrime-convention-dangerou...
CoE action against cybercrime
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/
(Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRi member IRIS - France)
The new Macedonian law on Law on Media and Audiovisual Media Services creates serious risks for freedom of expression in Macedonia.
The new law expands the scope of state control from broadcast media (which is justified because they use a limited public resource, namely wireless spectrum) to all kinds of media, including online and print. This is neither justified and unnecessary and far exceeds the requirements of the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU.
Furthermore, excessively broad definitions (for instance, the concept of journalists) and vague formulations create the risk and possibility of arbitrary interpretation by state regulators, which would increase the risk of the undermining of freedom of expression.
The drafting of the law suffered from a lack of effective consultation with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society and professional media. As a result, the planned regulatory bodies are given powers that could be exercised in non-transparent and unaccountable ways.
The law centralizes the power to impose heavy fines and other sanctions towards media and journalists within one body, a new Agency for Media and Audiovisual Media Services, which is under complete control of ruling political parties. The ruling parties can appoint 6 out of 7 board members through the Parliament and the association of municipalities (ZELS).
Contrary to article 16 of Macedonian constitution, which explicitly forbids censorship, the Media Law allows the Agency for Media and Audiovisual Media Services to impose limits of freedom of expression outside the scope of present laws (in particular, the Criminal Code for hate speech and Law on Defamation).
The availability of heavy fines means that media bodies can effectively be shut down for not adhering to bureaucratic procedures regarding registration or notification to the agency, for publishing content that it the agency subsequently deems morally harmful or for not publishing announcements by state bodies. Moreover, article 56 of the draft law also allows the Agency to limit of transmission of reception of audio and audiovisual media service from other countries. The wording of this provision is so vague that it could be used to require blocking of foreign online video services, such as YouTube or Vimeo.
EDRi member Metamorphosis Foundation
http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/en
OSCE analysis of the draft
http://www.osce.org/fom/102135
Analysis of the law by the British media legal expert Peter Noorlander,
published by the Association of Journalists of Macedonia
http://www.znm.org.mk/drupal-7.7/en/node/612
Macedonian government moves to limit online free speech and increase
State control of the media
http://www.apc.org/en/press/macedonian-government-moves-limit-online-f...
OWPSEE Press release
http://oneworldsee.org/content/macedonia-doesnt-need-law-media
USAid and Media Development Center analysis
http://mdc.org.mk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MDC_Analysis-of-the-draft...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Europarat tritt für Netzneutralität ein
As a follow-up to the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality, and in the implementation of the Internet Governance Strategy 2012-2015, the Council of Europe has organised on 29-30 May 2013 a multi-stakeholder dialogue on Network Neutrality and Human Rights.
Based on a background paper, which included a Model framework on Network Neutrality, the debate started with 2 keynote interventions: one from Chris Marsden, Professor at University of Sussex that presented an overview of the history of European Network Neutrality and Human Rights and the second from Joe McNamee from EDRi that emphasized why a regulatory approach was needed today on this topic. He also explained why the Internet users did't want Internet to be like the failed French Minitel system, which worked well, was very secure but lacked innovation.
The next two panels focused on the issues of Net Neutrality and Freedom of Expression and privacy, while the next day was shared between national experiences, with the presentations of the models in Netherlands, Slovenia and Norway, and the opinions of the private sector.
The EU Data Protection Supervisor representative Achim Klabunde reminded the participants that looking at the packets' content (such as via Deep Packet Inspection DPI) infringes the right to privacy and "explicit consent" is needed to have its traffic being monitored by ISP.
The Skype representative Jean-Jacques Sahel explained that in order to block this VoIP service, you needed to use DPI, as the application may use different ports.
Frode Sørensen from the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications authority pointed out the major issues of the co-regulatory approach to net neutrality they had adopted since 2006. He explained that transparency is not sufficient and that, even in their case, "regulatory measures will be considered if the voluntary agreement shows insufficient."
The private sector panel was hosting divergent opinions from the Deutsche Telekom representative who claimed that their data caps have been misunderstood and that they "do not have DPI in our fixed network" while the Skype representative was very direct in his conclusion: "There is a systemic failure in European mobile Internet access market."
The outcome paper of the major points of discussion will be communicated to the 47 member state representatives of the CoE Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) to consider and propose further action.
Conference announcement and agenda
http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/NN%20Conf%202013/default_en.as...
(Pre-) history of European Network Neutrality and Human Rights
(29.05.2013)
http://www.slideshare.net/EXCCELessex/pre-history-of-european-network-...
Slovenian Net Neutrality Law
http://www.scribd.com/doc/144614369/Slovenia-Net-Neutrality-law-2012
Net Neutrality in Norway – a co-regulatory approach (31.05.2013)
http://eng.npt.no/portal/page/portal/PG_NPT_NO_EN/PAG_NPT_EN_HOME/PAG_...
Council of Europe - Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on network
neutrality (29.09.2010)
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1678287
The debate on the private copying levy that is imposed in some EU Member States has been carried out for years and yet no solution has been found yet. The issue is also part of the wider discussion on copyright, its adaptation to the digital age and its legitimacy in the eyes of the citizen.
The private copying levy is a surcharge on the price of media and devices capable of making copies and is supposed to be redistributed to rights holders to compensate for the alleged harm suffered as a result of copies made under the private copy exception to copyright.
The money collected in some Member States is also partly used to finance socio-cultural projects. Yet, although it is important that artists and creators get paid for their creativity, the levy has created many barriers to the achievement of a single market and has served to discredit current legislation in the eyes of citizens. Its implementation and consequences are debatable.
A conflation between private copying levies and a payment for any unauthorised use would have an adverse effect on the credibility of this levy reform, for two main reasons: first, it is impossible to justify that consumers who only make authorised copies or copies subject to exceptions should be penalised. Second, the payment of this levy would not make illegal activity legal, meaning that the consumer would pay but get absolutely nothing in return.
It is difficult to find a coherent solution if the scope of the private copying levy enforcement is not consistent within the European Union. It is difficult to justify the existence of a private copying levy when some media legally prohibit any copying through digital rights management. The harmonisation of the private copying levy system is impossible without taking into account the harmonisation of copyright and its exceptions. Furthermore, social changes, changes in the use of content over recent years must be considered and the approach should be able to be adapted to future technological developments.
In January 2013, Mr Antonio Vitorino, former Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Portugal as well as a former European Commissioner responsible for Justice and Home Affairs, presented his recommendations to the European Parliament on the issue.
The report emphasises the value of licensed digital services, recommending an exemption for such products in order not to cause harm to consumers by forcing them to pay both a levy and a licence, as it presently occurs. This would stimulate the introduction of new business models in the digital sector. Mr Vitorino proposes to charge the levy to the final retailer and not the manufacturer, as it is currently the case in some European countries, to avoid double payment of the levy.
Although a very good step forward, Mr Vitorino’s recommendations provide only short and medium term measures and offer no solution in the long term.
Mr Vitorino’s recommendations are being discussed in the European Parliament and were also a subject of the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 27 May 2013.
EDRi: Private Copying Levy: EDRi's analysis (28.05.2013)
http://edri.org/positioncopylevy
EDRi: Private Copying Levy: EDRi's analysis (28.05.2013)
http://edri.org/files/privatecopyinglevies.pdf
Recommendations resulting from the mediation on private copy and
reprography levies (31.01.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/levy_reform/130131_...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Wird das neue Datenschutzgesetz schlechter als das alte?
The draft regulation on data protection proposed by the European Commission in January 2012 is being debated by MEPs to decide on de direction of the vote to be taken in the civil liberties committee, possibly at the beginning of July 2013.
The draft, which has more than 4000 amendments focuses on issues such as the right to be forgotten, data portability, profiling, consent and access to one’s own personal data.
Some of the many amendments are resulted from the high and continuous lobbying pressure from large companies and seem to be meant to delay the process and undermine fundamental rights. Peter Hustinx, the EDPS, has warned that the EU’s bill is in danger of collapse because of “excessive lobbying” by corporations and other entities which are against the privacy reform.
The lobbyists argue that strong data protection will trigger social and economic regression and that principles such as consent are economically unsustainable and should be diluted. The US has several times asked, publicly, for the weakening of the rights of European citizens. Stewart Robinson, Justice Counsellor with the US Mission to the EU, at the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection conference in Brussels in January 2013, condemned the European proposals and stated that rights were “what we (the government) give you”.
As if external pressure was not enough, the MEPs seem to be unable to agree upon such issues as territorial scope. UK Liberal MEP Baroness Sarah Ludford argued that companies in the EU which cater only to non-EU residents should be exempt from the regulation and stated that there was a need to “get legal clarity on which individuals are covered by the proposed regulation, whether it is people when they are present in the EU or those outside the EU.” As deputies have not reached a common agreement, the issue is to be negotiated by the Commission.
German Green Jan Philip Albrecht gave euobserver.com in an interview on 29 May 2013 a pretty pessimistic view on the development of the debates: "We promised the people that we will help give a proper legislation that will better enforce their rights, better protect their interest … and in the end, the only thing that we are doing - and this is not excluded – is to water down existing law. That is not what people would like to see." In his opinion, some of the amendments discussed and voted on would make the regulation even weaker than the existing 1995 directive which is the foundation of the draft regulation.
Albrecht’s opinion is that actually the draft text might end in weakening all the previous declarations of the European Parliament. “Much of what we have said unanimously is now contested by lobbyist groups and by some members in here in the house who seem not to feel obliged by the resolution they voted on in the first place,” said Albrecht.
For instance, the original outline of the regulation set out penalties of up to five percent of a company’s global revenue for egregious and repeated misuse of personal information. This has reached down to two percent and further on, the Industry, Research and Energy Committee of the European Parliament voted to lower the ceiling even further to one percent.
With a lot of pressure from large companies, it is up to the citizens to stand up for their rights by writing to their MEPs before it is too late. It is also possible that the debate will be delayed by the numerous amendments.
Don't let big businesses strip you of your privacy rights! Take control
of your data!
https://www.nakedcitizens.eu/
German petition for a strong data protection regulation
https://www.campact.de/eu-datenschutz/appell/teilnehmen/
EDRi: If we assume the earth is flat – how much does data protection
cost? (28.05.2013)
http://www.edri.org/flatearth
Euro-deputies diverge on data protection details (25.05.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120238
New EU data law could end up weaker than old one (29.05.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120301
Analysis: Why the EU data protection crisis is more perilous than you
imagined (31.05.2013)
http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/analysis-why-the-eu-data-p...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Kommission geht gegen Mitgliedsländer wegen Nicht-Umsetzung der Richt...
On 30 May 2013, the European Court of Justice ordered Sweden to pay the European Commission 3 million euro for the delay in transposing the 2006 EU data retention directive into its national law.
Sweden lost the first case in 2010 for infringing the deadline of September 2007. The data retention provisions were implemented on 1 May 2013 by a new Swedish government. Yet, the court fined the Swedish government for the delay in complying with the decision of 2010 and ordered the payment of 3 million Euro as well as of the case costs.
Sweden is not the only country that has not yet implemented the legislation. Belgium has received a warning from the Commission for not fully transposing the directive. The transposition into the Czech legislation was annulled by its Constitutional Court in 2011 and in Germany, the legislation was also stopped by the Constitutional Court in 2010. The Commission’s case is pending.
This resolution comes at a moment when the data retention directive continues to be opposed and controversial and many people are expecting the data retention directive to be declared in breach of the EU constitutional law. The Commission itself reached the conclusion in 2012 that the legislation needed to be reformed as it had failed to achieve its goals.
The Austrian and the Irish high courts have referred cases to the European Court of Justice on the directive in 2012 arguing it might violate the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. For the time being, the Commission has postponed the regular review of the directive which is expected to be finalised in 2014.
EU Anti-Terror Data Retention Directive Meeting Resistance In EU Courts
(1.06.2013)
http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/06/01/eu-anti-terror-data-retention-direc...
Judgement of the Court (Fourth Chamber) in EC vs Kingdom of Sweden case
C‑270/11 (30.05.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=137...
EDRigram: ENDitorial: Data retention - faint heart never won fair lady
(20.06.2012)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.12/data-retention-courage-needed
In the previous EDRi-gram, we published an “ENDitorial” entitled “European Privacy Association – good, bad or simply misunderstood”. In that article, we made reference to the ICOMP organisation and its transparency.
Subsequent to the publication of that article, Burson-Marsteller asked for some clarifications to be made. The clarifications (copied verbatim from an e-mail to us) that were requested as follows:
a. "Contrary to what you indicate, ICOMP does not send emails to Members of the Parliament directly. Instead, emails to EU officials are always sent from a Burson-Marsteller account for transparency reasons"
EDRi comment: See below a link to an e-mail sent from ICOMP/Burson-Marsteller to a staff member at the European Parliament. http://edri.org/files/icomp_bm.pdf
b. "Burson-Marsteller works on behalf of ICOMP. As is customary, BM’s emails to EU officials are fully transparent, indicating in our signature that we represent ICOMP and also providing a link to Burson-Marsteller’s entry on the EU transparency register"
EDRi comment: As the example e-mail is advertising an event of ICOMP, it would seem to make far more sense to provide a link to ICOMP's transparency register entry. A link to the Burson-Marsteller's transparency register entry is not enlightening.
c, "Burson-Marsteller’s entry on the EU transparency register has always indicated that ICOMP is a client (see link here 9155503593-86 under the category 'Clients generating a turnover of 250000 € - 300000 €.': INITIATIVE FOR A COMPETITIVE ONLINE MARKETPLACE www.i-comp.org”
EDRi comment: This is true. It is also true that this does not provide any transparency about iCOMP, beyond the fees that it pays to Burson-Marseller.
d. "ICOMP is also on the transparency register since 2009:
http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylo... "
EDRi comment: This is true. However, the failings of that entry led the transparency register secretariat to make the following observations in an e-mail to an MEP:
We would like to inform you that following the alert you made on 5th September relative to the organisation ICOMP, we have performed a quality check of the information provided in their registration (see link below or ID number 94410281407-45 in the Transparency Register).
ICOMP did not originally provide a full list of their member organisations/ companies, and did not provide a link to their website where this information is outlined.
They have now updated their page, in order to include this information. In view of the following facts we consider the alert to have been dealt with by our services, and the case to be closed.
e."The EU Commission officials in charge of the transparency register have never brought to Burson-Marsteller’s attention or to ICOMP’s attention that a complaint has been made (that would be the procedure in case of a complaint) and consequently nothing in these profiles has been corrected to our knowledge on that basis."
EDRi comment: After checking with Burson-Marsteller, it turns out that they did receive a “quality check” notice from the transparency register secretariat. Burson-Marsteller tells us that the transparency register secretariat omitted to mention that this was the result of a complaint.
ICOMP website
http://www.i-comp.org
Example email
http://edri.org/files/icomp_bm.pdf
ENDitorial: European Privacy Association - good, bad or simply
misunderstood? (22.05.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.10/european-privacy-association-lobb...
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
German petition for a strong data protection regulation
You can sign the petition here: (only in German)
https://www.campact.de/eu-datenschutz/appell/teilnehmen/
Modern Poland Foundation has announced the second edition of Future of
Copyright Contest.
We are raising money for prizes and asking for preparing new works
regarding the future of copyright. The work may be of any kind (text,
video, audio), and of any genre (i.e. legal analysis, dystopia or utopia
story, educational video – sky is the limit here), but it must address
the general subject of the Future of Copyright.
The deadline for submitting the works is 1st of July 2013, and the
deadline for those who want to contribute financial through indieggogo
is 7th of July.
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/future-of-copyright-contest-2-0
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
EDRi - SIF Unconference: Enforcement through "self-"Regulation - who
ever thought this was a good idea? (27.05.2013)
http://edri.org/sif13
What mobile internet filtering tells us about porn blocks (31.05.2013)
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/what-mobile-internet-filteri...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22726004
Internet companies warn May over 'snooper's charter' (30.05.2013)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/30/snoopers-charter-web-fi...
Rapidgator Not Responsible for Pirating Users, Italian Court Lifts ISP
Blockade (30.05.2013)
https://torrentfreak.com/rapidgator-not-responsible-for-pirating-users...
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party - Press Release "European Data
Protection Authorities argue for clear limits to profiling ? further
input to the data protection reform discussions" (28.05.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/...
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/o...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
8 June 2013, London, UK
ORGCon 2013
http://orgcon.openrightsgroup.org
17-18 June 2013, Tunis, Tunisia
3rd Freedom Online Conference
http://www.freedomonline.tn
20-21 June 2013, Lisbon, Portugal
EuroDIG 2013
http://www.eurodig.org/
25-26 June 2013, Barcelona, Spain
9th International Conference on Internet Law & Politics: Big Data:
Challenges and Opportunities.
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2013/?lang=en
25-26 June 2013, Washington, DC, USA
23rd Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference (CFP)
http://www.cfp.org/2013
31 July – 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
https://ohm2013.org/
14-15 September 2013, Vienna, Austria
Daten, Netz & Politik 2013 - DNP13
https://dnp13.unwatched.org/
17-18 September 2013, Geneva, Switzerland
2013 Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon)
http://okcon.org/call-for-proposals/
23-26 September 2013, Warsaw, Poland
Public Voice Conference 2013
35th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners conference
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/259/id_art/762/j/en/
24-25 September 2013, Brussels, Belgium
EU hackaton - hack4yourrights
This year’s theme is privacy
Application by 15 June 2013
http://2013.euhackathon.eu/
27-30 September 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Freedom not Fear 2013
http://www.freedomnotfear.org/
http://www.freedom-not-fear.eu
22-25 October 2013, Bali, Indonesia
Internet Governance Forum 2013
http://igf2013.or.id/
25-27 October 2013, Siegen, Germany
Cyberpeace - FIfF Annual Meeting 2013
http://www.fiff.de/
22-24 January 2014, Brussels, Belgium
CPDP 2014: Reforming data protection: The Global Perspective
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/