This article is also available in:
Deutsch: PRISM: EDRi-Schreiben an US-Botschafter
On 18 June 2013, EDRi delivered the following letter in a frank exchange of views with the US Embassy on PRISM & data protection:
European Digital Rights would like to thank you for the invitation to meet with you today. We welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with you on current issues of great importance to citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, we would also like to express our profound disappointment with regard to recent revelations about the PRISM programme and the underlying legal framework (FISAAA in particular), which provides the domestic legal basis for this activity. We expect and demand better from the United States of America.
We would also like to express our disappointment at the behaviour of the United States during the discussions surrounding the proposed European Regulation and Directive on data protection.
Regarding PRISM, widespread untargeted surveillance leads to self-censorship, the discouragement of dissent, the restriction of freedom of assembly and the restriction of freedom of communication. In such an environment, democratic discourse and participation are the ultimate casualties. Untargeted surveillance imposed in societies which have had no democratic choice in the matter, which have neither been consulted nor informed of this infringement of their basic rights is a double affront to democracy. The fact that the foreign power (regardless of who that foreign power is) that imposed these restrictions believes that its domestic procedures are adequate to minimise the risks of this surveillance is wholly irrelevant. When the President of that foreign power then seeks to reassure his own citizens that the surveillance only covers foreigners (who do not even have the same rights before US courts as US citizens), this heaps insult onto injury. We expect better.
Regarding the European legislative proposals on data protection, while we recognise the right of the United States to give its views on relevant legislation in the European Union, we expect and demand an appropriate degree of respect for our democratic processes. The US intervention in the drafting process of the Regulation, even before the text was formally available to citizens in Europe, was wholly inappropriate. The resulting successful deletion of provisions to protect the fundamental rights of European citizens against access by foreign governments went far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in a democratic society. The use of an "informal note"(1), distributed to the Commission without traceability to the US government, fell far below the minimum standards one should be able to expect from the United States. We were also shocked by your speech at the Forum Europe Conference where you referred to "the regulation’s requirement for explicit consent in all circumstances", which is simply false. We expect and demand better from the United States than misrepresentations of this nature.
It was possibly even more surprising to see a second "informal note"(2) being circulated by the US authorities in January of this year. We were also disappointed by the frantic, alarmist and essentially groundless nature of that document. We stress that the United States has the right to make its views known in this process - but it has to stand behind its statements. Both in terms of process and content, the circulation of the informal paper fell, yet again, beneath the standards that we should be able to expect from the United States. The contradiction between the paper's call for respect for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on the one hand, and the unequivocal breach of Articles 17 and 19 of that instrument by the PRISM programme is quite simply astonishing.
In summary, we demand:
- that the USA desist from any and all foreign data collection measures that are not part of appropriate mutual legal assistance agreements that have treaty status;
- that any foreign data collection measure include provisions giving all affected individuals, at the very least, equal rights to US citizens at all stages of an investigation and, to avoid “jurisdiction-shopping”, rights that are not significantly lower than any democratically approved safeguards in their country of residence;
- that the USA desist from any and all data collection measures which are not targeted and not based on concrete suspicions;
- that the USA desist in future from lobbying on proposals that have not been released by the European Commission;
- that the USA only communicate future position papers to the European Union that are clearly identifiable as documents emanating from the US administration.
We say all of this not because we do not respect the United States, but because we do. We expect better because we know that we can expect better.
(1) First informal note; December 2011 http://edri.org/files/12_2011_DPR_USlobby.pdf
(2) Second informal note, January 2013 http://edri.org/files/us_position_20130114.pdf
The EDRi letter in a PDF format (18.06.2013)
http://edri.org/files/20130618_kennard_letter.pdf
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
According to documents obtained by The Washington Post and the Guardian, NSA and FBI are extracting e-mails, photographs, documents, video and audio chats directly from the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, within a programme called PRISM which has not been made public until now.
As one of the documents mentions, the companies in question are: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.
The British equivalent of NSA, GCHQ appears to gather the same type of data from the same companies, through PRISM which allows them to circumvent the formal British legal process for obtaining personal material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company based outside of the country.
Also, an anonymous source from within the Dutch intelligence services revealed to the Dutch De Telegraaf, the unlimited access the authority has to the data of civilians and enterprises. Although this access should be limited by internal procedures, these services can apparently take information easily through PRISM. Similar activities were reported in Belgium or Germany.
The US have no comprehensive federal privacy legislation but have instead spying measures like the PATRIOT Act and FISAAA in place. Moreover, the constitution only covers US citizens, putting foreign users of cloud services under very little protection from US government intrusion.
To make things worse, the EU has failed in the process of adopting a proper data protection regulation. The initial draft of the regulation has been weakened by the US strong lobby. Safeguards meant to create a legal foundation when transferring data to third countries were removed as a direct result of the US pressure. “Bizarrely, the majority of commissioners decided that they wanted to give up this strategic advantage, in return for, it appears, nothing,” explains Joe McNamee, the executive director of EDRi.
In addition to watering down the proposed Regulation, countries like the UK are trying to delay the process and subsume it into the EU-US free trade agreement (TTIP/TAFTA), which would subordinate a fundamental rights discussion to a trade negotiation.
Dutch Liberal deputy, Sophie in't Veld, told EUobserver that she hoped the PRISM scandal "could help raise awareness" of the issues in Brussels and believes the European Commission must take a tougher position in future US talks. "I am somewhat surprised everybody is getting so excited about this latest scandal. It is just one of the many examples of the US tapping into our data without telling us. And of the EU commission doing nothing about it," in't Veld said.
U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program (7.06.2013) http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-da...
EDRi: PRISM explains the wider lobbying issues surrounding EU data protection reform (10.06.2013) http://edri.org/prism
Bits of Freedom: Dutch spooks must stop use of PRISM (translation of a Dutch press release, 11.06.2013) https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-u...
'We try to collect everything and hang on to it forever': US intelligence agencies' cosy relationship with academia and business may be hard to unwind (10.06.2013) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-try-to-collect-every...
Germany most snooped EU country by US (10.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120431
US defends spy programme to sceptical EU (14.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120505
Belgium had access to the data in PRISM (10.06.2013)
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Spanien: Staatlicher Trojaner könnte künftig Privat-Computer ausspio...
A draft Criminal Procedure Code issued by the Spanish Ministry of Justice, authorises the police to install trojans on computers from surveyed individuals.
According to Article 350 of the proposed draft, prosecutors may ask the judge for “the installation of a software that allows the remote examination and without knowledge of the owner, of the content in computers, electronic devices, computer systems, instruments of massive storage or databases.” The measure is meant for crimes with punishments over 3 years, for terrorism, cyber crime and organised crime.
Moreover, the draft text says that official agents may require cooperation from “anyone who knows the operation of the computer system or measures applied in order to protect data held there", meaning experts, “hackers”, ISPs or other computer companies.
The draft has raised serious concerns related to privacy as well as to possible abuses. One of the most disturbing issues is the fact that there is no limit saying that such a computer programme will be limited to spying. There is no reference to what happens next with the data obtained. After the installation of the programme, the possibilities are unlimited.
Experts, such as Juan Carlos Ortiz Pradillo, from the University of Castilla-La Mancha, explained that if the draft remains as such, Spanish authorities will also have access to passwords that citizens use for their email, social network profiles, bank accounts and other online services.
Alberto Sáiz, a specialist in interventions in communications, stated the proposal was very invasive from the point of view of the fundamental rights, affecting the individual’s privacy as well as the communication secret in an extensive way. The expert considers that the range of crimes covered by the draft is too extensive and not precise enough.
In addition, companies will have to collaborate with the police if they require the installation of surveillance systems, something that will go against privacy rights and data protection rules.
Spanish police might use trojans to spy computers (4.06.2013)
http://www.neurope.eu/article/spanish-police-might-use-trojans-spy-com...
The police will be able to use Trojans to investigate computers and
tablets (only in Spanish, 3.06.2013)
http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/06/03/actualidad/1370289646_8...
Trojans in my computer? Possible? So what? (only in Spanish, 5.06.2013)
http://www.internautas.org/html/7603.html
Legalising the use of Trojan viruses by the police puts in question
citizen fundamental rights (only in Spanish, 6.06.2013)
http://www.internautas.org/html/7604.html
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Medienfreiheit und Pluralismus in Europa
At the beginning of the year, the European Commission's High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism published a report and presented several recommendations to protect and promote a free and pluralistic media in Europe.
In order to collect feedback on the report and recommendations, the European Commission launched a public consultation to which EDRi responded on 14 June (see link to full answer below). The consultation intended to open the discussion on media freedom without, however, detailing any possible follow-up actions or concrete measures envisaged by the Commission.
Firstly, we emphasised that, in order to efficiently implement Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is only credible on the global stage when press and media freedoms are safeguarded and respected within the Union itself. We highlighted the fact that support for quality journalism can only be achieved with appropriate protections for whistleblowers and demanded that the Commission propose an instrument to provide legal protections.
Secondly, we highlighted the importance of safeguarding freedom of speech in our democratic, open and free societies, especially with regard to the digital environment. It is true that the Internet in itself can act as a guarantor of freedom of opinion and expression. These fundamental rights need to be safeguarded by the rule of law and legislative frameworks. We therefore especially welcomed the expert group's recommendation to enshrine Net Neutrality in EU law. As we have pointed out in answers to previous consultations by the Commission and BEREC, there is a growing body of evidence that access providers restrict and limit access to the Internet in Europe. A regulation of Net Neutrality would avoid certain industry players becoming gatekeepers on behalf of media organisations, with power over citizens' communications and their rights to freedom of expression and to impart and receive information.
Expert group's recommendation 12 proposed that “services that provide heavily personalised search results or newsfeeds should provide the possibility for the user to turn off such personalisation, temporarily for an individual query, or permanently, until further notice”. We pointed out that any such personalisation or individualisation measures usually requires the collection and cross-linking of personal data which could represent a fundamental threat to privacy as well as a danger to pluralism and access to knowledge.
With regard to recommendation 23, we expressed concerns regarding the very vague, dangerous and possibly counter-productive wording and suggested a deletion of the recommendation: “Member States should ensure that appropriate instruments are put in place for identifying those responsible for harming others, even in the online space. Any internet user‐data collection necessary for this purpose should be kept confidential and made available only by a court order.”
Finally, we pointed out that the expert group's definition of media or “journalistic activities” might need further explanation. Actions to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the media should encompass both traditional media and the digital world - news is increasingly produced and consumed not only by the traditional press but also by bloggers, citizen reporters and social media producers.
EDRi's response to the consultation (06.2013)
http://edri.org/files/062013-MediaFreedomPuralism-final.pdf
Consultation
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/public-consultation-independent-...
High Level Group, report (01.2013)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/HLG%20F...
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: MEPs verzögern EU-PNR, aber EU-Russland PNR wird kommen
On 10 June 2013, the MEPs were supposed to vote on the recommendation of EP LIBE Committee (Civil liberties committee) to reject an EU passenger data retention system (Passenger Name Records or PNR), proposed by the EU Commission. Yet, a majority of MEPs decided to refer it back to LIBE, following a request by British MEP Tim Kirkhope. He cited "technical reasons" for the request and the ECR group said that the file was originally rejected in the same LIBE Committee because of a “random” or “accidental” majority.
Yet, some of the members accuse political interests. "Referring the anticipated decision on the draft EU PNR system back to the civil liberties committee is a cynical act of chicanery. The committee voted to recommend the rejection of the PNR system, due to concerns about its disproportionate and far-reaching nature, and this recommendation should have been put to the vote this week. The EP's conservative draftsperson/rapporteur is trying to pull a fast one simply because the committee's recommendation did not suit his agenda. The concerns with the proposed system have not in any way diminished. If anything, with the latest revelations about US infringement of the privacy rights of European citizens, we should be even more cautious about establishing more data grabbing and profiling systems. Against this background, it is to be hoped that the committee delivers the same negative verdict on the EU PNR system and that the democratic process is allowed to run its course,” stated Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA).
Meanwhile, starting with 1 July 2013, the EU airlines, will be forced to hand over passengers' personal data, such as credit card details, to Russian security services, under a new decree passed by Russia in July 2012, without EU knowledge, to establish a PNR and then request passenger data from airlines companies for all flights passing through Russia.
Kirill Ivanov, a spokesman for Russia's EU ambassador, told EUobserver that Moscow had published the full text of its new PNR law in September 2012 even if it did not send a special notice to Brussels. "These measures can hardly be qualified as unexpected … the EU had sufficient time to prepare for this document entering into force," said the spokesman.
Dutch Liberal Sophie in 't Veld, considered that the European Commission should have been aware of the issue and that the commissioner in charge of the dossier, Sweden's Cecilia Malmstrom had had a "passive … bureaucratic … mysterious" approach on the matter. She also drew attention over the fact that, by signing EU-US PNR, the EU position in the negotiation with Russia and other countries has been weakened, as the EU can’t deny to others what has accepted to give to the Americans. Several other countries are also planning to impose PNR regimes on EU passengers, such as Canada, India, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, "It's only a matter of time before China starts collecting data as well," she said. The serious issue is that many of these countries, including Russia, have a track record of potential data abuses infringing human rights.
EU PNR vote prevented by chicanery, as data protection concerns abound
(10.06.2013)
http://www.greens-efa.eu/passenger-dataprivacy-9999.html
European Parliament delays vote on sharing passenger data with US
authorities (11.06.2013)
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/061113-european-parliament-delay...
Russia blames EU for airline data fiasco (11.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120450
EDRi-gram: Call for Action: Vote on the retention of air passenger data
(PNR) (5.06.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/action-vote-on-PNR
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Deutscher Bundestag drängt auf Begrenzung von Software-Patenten
On 7 June 2013, the German Parliament unanimously decided upon a joint motion to limit software patents urging the government to take measures in this sense. In the German MPs’ opinion, supported by several SME associations, software should be covered exclusively by copyright, and the rights of the copyright holders should not be devalued by third parties' software patents.
The joint motion was introduced in the Parliament in April and after a first hearing, the legal committee held an external expert meeting on 13 May where most of the participants, including representatives from the industry, SME associations and other experts and groups such as the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), supported the motion.
According to the motion, the only exception where patents should be allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component. The Parliament also made clear that the actions of the Government related to patents must never interfere with the legality of distributing Free Software.
The Parliament acknowledges that, in actual practice, especially that of the European Patent Office (EPO) — software-related patents have been granted in the guise of “technical procedure” or “technical equipment” that would be necessary to use the respective software. “The number of software - related patents granted by the EPO alone has been estimated in the high five - digit range. This situation leads to substantial legal uncertainty for software developers: the abstract nature of the patent claims means that a software - related patent encompasses all of the separate embodiments of the protected problem solution in concrete computer programs. Computer programs which contain protected problem solutions may not be utilised commercially without the consent of the patent holder.
The software developers affected by this situation lose de facto the exploitation rights intended under copyright laws to the computer programs they have themselves created and are exposed to unpredictable cost and liability risks in the event of commercial utilisation. In addition, patent-protected components of software solutions are fundamentally irreconcilable with the terms and conditions of licences for largely open source software. There are justified fears that the general economic consequences of this situation will be a tendency to monopolisation in the software sector and the correspondingly negative consequences for innovation dynamics and the labour market,” says the text of the motion.
At an expert meeting in the Parliament on 13 May 2013, the industry associations BIKT and BITMi proposed changes to German copyright and patent law. One proposal was to add a "protective shield" clause in the German copyright law, to introduce a blanket ban on the enforcement of patent claims related to software. Another proposal was to provide clauses in the German patent law ensuring that the effect of patent claims would not extend to works protected independently by copyright.
The organisations present at the expert meeting also warned against giving all the responsibility to the EU which, in their opinion, has been incapable of providing legal certainty for software developers until now. "Germany now has to implement this decision in law, to send a strong signal towards Brussels," says Johannes Sommer of BIKT, one of the associations.
"Since the EU has decided to give away its power to make rules on the unitary patent, this step towards limiting patents on software is all the more important", stated Matthias Kirschner, FSFE's coordinator for Germany.
German Parliament tells government to strictly limit patents on software
(12.06.2013)
https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130612-01.en.html
Motion Proposed by the Parliamentary Groups of the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and
BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN Securing Competition and Innovation Dynamics in
the Software Sector (16.04.2013)
http://www.bikt.de/fileadmin/redakteur/pdf/1713086_en.pdf
Software patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Noch immer kein Zugang zu ACTA-Dokumenten
Today, 19 June 2013, the European Commission answered within the time limit it had set for itself to answer to DFRI's requests for ACTA documents. On 29 May 2013 the Commission extended the time limit with 15 working days arguing the "new time limit" was statutory under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The Commission explained it had to extend the period by 15 working days because its reply to DFRI was "circulating for signature by the hierarchy" and that "circulating for signature by the hierarchy" is an "exceptional case" under the same article.
The answer EDRi member DFRI received today was not signed by anyone but the sender of the email. Neither did it contain any ACTA documents.
The Commission argues that: "The question of the Court to the Commission, being a procedural document, does not fall within the scope of Regulation 1049/2001 as Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) specifies that the Court is only subject to obligations on Transparency when exercising their administrative tasks. This has as consequence that the document itself can't be disclosed by the Commission."
Email from European Commission refusing disclosure of ACTA documents
(19.06.2013)
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-response-2013-06-19.txt
Email from European Commission extending deadline (29.05.2013)
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-extending-deadline-2013-05-29...
All ACTA documents @ DFRI website
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/
(Contribution by EDRi member DFRI - Sweden)
The wave of resistance that started at Gezi Park on the 29 May 2013 in Istanbul and has since spread all over Turkey once again revealed a deep connection between real time communication on social media and social movements. Throughout the protests, social media platforms have become the primary news source in this environment where the mainstream media have proven themselves to be the site of disinformation or inertia. But even more importantly, social media have become indispensable as a source of information for those who have been actively organizing on the ground, cooperating with different national and international groups, showing solidarity, gathering evidence against the security forces and providing medical and legal assistance.
As #DirenGeziPark (#ResistGeziPark) gained in momentum and the role of social media in the course of the events became evident, the Prime Minister and other spokespersons of the government started publicly denouncing these media platforms.
Each statement and press release from the government targeted at disqualifying social media as an untrustworthy and dangerously manipulative source of information.
In an interview, the Prime Minister declared that social media is a "menace to society" and it is full of slander and lies. Vice-Prime Minister Bulent Arinc stated that social media platforms are centers of mass manipulation and the government could block/cut off access if they wanted. What is most unfortunate in Arinc's statement is the government's open threat to put further constraints on the basic freedoms associated with the use of the Internet. But the threats were not limited to legal constraints, AKP's social media advisor Ali Sahin claimed that "A false tweet is more dangerous than a car bomb. Legal arrangements regarding social media is a must" and hinted at an upcoming arrangement to control the Internet based on dubious legal grounds using disciplinary actions.
A number of disciplinary interventions with respect to current use of social media have already occurred. Istanbul Governor Huseyin Avni Mutlu mentioned today plans for a "social media operation". The attorney General of the Republic in Ankara received a court decision to investigate the cellular phones of 230 citizens in custody, most probably with the intention to examine social media use as well as the social networks of these citizens.
As Alternatif Bilisim, we object to the scapegoating of the social media through denunciations by government spokespersons. On social media platforms, citizens of Turkey have found an opportunity to instantly share with the world the events unfolding on the streets as well as their democratic demands. It was through this mediated communication that it was possible to put on the map the disproportionate and excessive use of force by the police, an ongoing situation that was eventually admitted by the government, including the Prime Minister. Without the mediation of social media, authorities and those interested could not have been informed as extensively of the extend and brutality of the events occurring on the streets. Social media platforms hence functioned as communication outlets that filled the gap left wide open by the mainstream media. The latter remained blind to the events and avoided any "critical" reporting. Numerous cases of violation of fundamental rights as well as police violence have been documented by citizens and brought to the world's attention. We believe these reports have played an instrumental role in preventing the further deterioration of tensions with the police. Furthermore, social media platforms played a crucial role in organizing rescue and treatment of injured people, which ranged from those having asthma attacks to those suffering lethal wounds. The successful use of social media has in that sense has even proven to save lives.
To sum up, in face of the current political power, social media platforms have turned into a conduit through which the citizens could make their voices heard, and through which they could demonstrate to the world the injustices they have been subject to. The prominence of social media in the protests has been akin to their use in the Arab Spring and the Occupy protests. We don't want to imagine the possible consequences of the violence that could be asserted by those currently in power in the absence of the Internet and the mediation of social media platforms.
We are concerned!
The discomfort government representatives are experiencing with social media are evident in their communication with the press. In their public statements, these powerful figures are also signalling that they are intent on increasing censorship on public information outlets and in applying further controls to social media and the Internet.
On the ground, dozens of people have been taken into custody for their use of Twitter during the protests. The lawyers that had access to the files of these people stated that the imputed accusations are not supported by substantial evidence. Regardless of the dodgy basis of the accusations, it is evident that the government is repurposing Internet and mobile technologies to monitor communications and illegally collect personal information. State surveillance on the Internet and the resulting oppression of citizens that express their views and support towards the protests through the social media is not acceptable.
We are concerned that in the coming months the AKP government will become more strict when it comes to enforcing existing repressive laws that apply to information, press and the internet. Government spokespersons have also signaled that, when needed, they are ready to introduce new laws in this respect. We are specifically concerned that the government will enhance existing practices of surveillance, e.g., DPI, filtering, and related disciplinary measures. If their statements materialize, be it through legal or disciplinary measures, the effects are likely to reflect negatively upon fundamental rights and freedoms -- as well as on the role of Internet intermediaries towards governments vs. citizens.
We call upon the government and other political powers to take a peaceful and conscientious stand towards the protests as well as the use of social media, and to act in a manner that will calm down citizens.
We declare that we will use every democratic right we have and take all possible legal steps to counter attempts to illegitimately limit and take away the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens in a democratic society.
We also call upon all citizens to claim their fundamental right to
access the Internet and related services. We invite all citizens to
use these conduits more effectively and accurately.
-#ResistSocialMedia
The Power of Social Media - The Helplessness of Traditional Media and "#direngeziparki,#direnankara,#direnizmir": An analysis of the Alternative Informatics Association
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/An_analysis_of_Gezi_Parki
Resist Social Media
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Resist_Social_Media
EDRi-gram: Turkish demonstrations using social media despite censorship
(5.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/turkish-demonstration-social-medi...
(Contribution by EDRi member Alternative Informatics Association - Turkey)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
Subscribe to the monthly digital rights newsletter for Latin America and
Caribbean
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/category/english/
Issue 0
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/tag/n0-062013/
Respect my privacy
http://www.respect-my-privacy.eu
Sign the Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and
telecommunications surveillance
http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus endorses EFF's objection
against DRM in HTML5 (17.06.2013)
http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Object...
European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights (17.06.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate...
Yes We Scan! Privacy Activists Protest Against PRISM and NSA
Surveillance As President Obama Arrives in Berlin (18.06.2013)
https://netzpolitik.org/2013/yes-we-scan-privacy-activists-protest-aga...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
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
26-27 June 2013, Paris, France
Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct
Responsible Business Conduct in the ICT Sector
http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/globalforumonresponsiblebusinessconduct/
9 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
JURI workshop on legal aspects of free and open source software
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html?id=worksh...
5-7 July 2013, Cologne, Germany
SIGINT is an annual three-day conference on technical and social aspects
of our digital society
http://sigint.ccc.de/
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
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/