Privacy advocates from North America and Europe met last week in Washington, DC to participate in the Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP) conference 2013 and to discuss transatlantic cooperation on privacy and data protection issues. The debates focused on the NSA leaks, the European data protection reform and the upcoming negotiations on the EU-US free trade agreement (TAFTA/TTIP).
In light of recent revelations about the collection of personal data from Internet companies by the US government and other dragnet surveillance techniques that impact the rights of Internet users, the North American and European privacy advocates issued the “Washington Statement” in support of the data protection reform in the European Union.
The Statement was jointly drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Bits of Freedom (BoF), the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Friends of Privacy USA, Privacy International and many others. It is now open for individual endorsements at http://washingtonstatement.org.
This coalition of civil society and consumer groups issued the following consensus statement:
Privacy is a basic human right set out in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
We, the undersigned civil society groups from North America and Europe,
are outraged because:
• Under PRISM and related surveillance programs, the US government is
collecting personal data that individuals have given to companies such
as Google or Facebook. These data were given freely or inadvertently,
trusting that they would only be used for stated commercial purposes and
not secretly shared with governments in order to monitor innocent people
worldwide;
• At the same time, the US companies and the US administration are
lobbying in Europe against European data protection law at a time when
the world needs strong privacy protections most;
• EU citizens currently have significant privacy rights that US citizens
do not have – thereby creating a level of trust in the public and
private sectors in the European Union that is not available to US citizens.
Currently, the European Union is reforming its general data protection
framework for the private sector. We therefore call on EU policy makers:
• to oppose corporate lobbying and to prevent the erosion of privacy
protections in the European Union;
• to set a high standard and ensure that EU data protection law sets a
global standard for privacy;
• to ensure specific rights of individuals are being preserved, such as
explicit consent to personal data processing, the right to access,
rectification and certain rights to erasure that are in the existing
European legal framework;
• to ensure basic principles that would help protect citizens against
untargeted and disproportionate surveillance measures, such as data
minimization, purpose limitation, limited storage periods and
notification procedures;
• to ensure that personal data processed in the EU is not transferred to
third country authorities without a determination that there are
adequate privacy safeguards.
We further call on US policy makers:
• to repeal provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act
that permit unlawful surveillance of users of Internet services;
• to enact the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” into law;
• to cease the US opposition to EU efforts to strengthen data protection;
• to support ratification of Council of Europe Convention 108.
Our common future, on both sides of the Atlantic, needs privacy and a strong European law. We call on European policy makers to defend this human right now, as an essential prerequisite for preserving privacy, freedom of thought and of expression in vibrant democracies.
The Statement can be endorsed at
http://washingtonstatement.org
Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference 2013
http://www.cfp.org/2013/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Prism, Tempora ... und der EGMR?
By revealing documents about Prism US surveillance programme, Snowden, the former American National Security Agency (NSA) employee, seems to have opened a Pandora box. Der Spiegel has brought out new revelations that EU offices in Brussels, New York and Washington were bugged by NSA under the same Prism programme.
According to Der Spiegel, a series of bogus phone calls to the Justus Lipsius building, hosting the EU Council, were traced back to NATO headquarters in Brussels where NSA agents are based, indicating an attack on the EU communications security.
These revelations have put the trade agreements between the EU and the USA under serious threats. "We cannot negotiate on a giant transatlantic market when there is even the slightest suspicion that our partners are spying the offices of the negotiators," stated EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding.
“The Prism revelations have made European parliamentarians more receptive to stronger measures,” told Joe McNamee from EDRi to New York Times. “But the reaction has not been as strong as we had hoped for.”
Moreover, the British intelligence service, GCHQ seems to have also been running a similar, even bigger surveillance programme called Tempora, in operation for the last 18 months, which taps into transatlantic fibre-optic cables used for telephone and Internet services. The agency processes large amounts of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with NSA.
"It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,. They (GCHQ) are worse than the US," stated Snowden for the Guardian. The Guardian says that GCHQ handles 600 million “telephone events” each day, having tapped into more than 200 fibre-optic cables. Unfortunately, neither programmes respect data protection safeguards.
The US FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendment Act explicitly allows the US authorities to spy on the anyone’s Internet activities and communications even outside the country, to monitor political and commercial activities even if these are just vaguely "of interest" to the government. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) allows the UK government to do the same whenever a "communication" is initiated or ends in the UK.
Douwe Korff explains in The Guardian that GCHQ is clearly in breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under which the UK has a duty to prevent agencies such as NSA from spying on the data and communications of British and other individuals. Even more, GCHQ is facilitating NSA access to these data.
In the US, the national branch of Amnesty International took the spying issue to the domestic courts which dismissed the case considering the allegations were "too speculative". Now, in the light of the new revelations, Amnesty and others civil rights groups should urgently consider taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) directly.
EU-US relations at risk after new bugging scandal (1.07.2013)
http://euobserver.com/foreign/120689
EDRi-gram: US agencies have unlimited access to Internet data (19.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.12/prism-case-us-agencies-access-int...
EDRi-gram: EDRi letter to the US Embassy on PRISM (19.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.12/edri-letter-on-prism
UK spy scheme said to be larger than Prism (24.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120612
We can use European law to challenge this spying (23.06.2013)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/european-law-chall...
Attacks from America: NSA Spied on European Union Offices (29.06.2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union...
E.U. Reaction to Data Sharing Revelations Grew Slowly (30.06.2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/technology/eu-reaction-to-data-shari...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Kann Surfen im Internet gegen das Urheberrecht verstoßen?
Do you violate copyright law by using an Internet browser? This is, in short, the question that the UK Supreme Court is asking the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in a preliminary ruling. The case considered by the UK Supreme Court (Public Relations Consultants Association v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors) questions whether or not the mere act of viewing copyright material on a website via an Internet browser constitutes a breach of copyright.
It is yet another copyright case at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in which rightsholders are trying to restrict the application of the copyright exceptions and limitations recognised in the 2001 Copyright Directive.
The Public Relations Consultant Association Ltd ("the Association") provides a monitoring service to its clients by using services of Meltwater group, whose software automatically identifies relevant news content. The case involves an appeal against a decision that clients of the Association needed a licence to view the media monitoring service.
Meltwater holds a licence to access the plaintiff's (The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd) material. The issue at stake here is whether the clients were in breach of copyright when they accessed the copyrighted material via a web-browser. In order to view any web content, a "cache" copy of the document is automatically created and the plaintiffs argue that this “unauthorised” copy could breach copyright.
According to the Supreme Court, web-browsing creates temporary copies that are covered by the exception established in Article 5.1 of Directive 2001/29/EC and do not constitute an infringement of copyright. "Cache" copies are stored automatically by browsing and also automatically deleted after a certain lapse of time coupled with the browser use and are not dependent on human intervention. The Supreme Court considers that the exception applies to copies made for the sole purpose of allowing lawful uses and this includes browsing the web. The Court rightly notes that it would be an unacceptable result to consider millions of ordinary Internet users to be copyright infringers by dint of merely accessing a web-page containing copyright material.
The Court, however, decided to refer the case to the ECJ because of the transnational dimension of the question that could impact Internet users across the EU.
Behind this case is the question whether or not people should pay a licence to access copyrighted material that is legally available online. Recently, as in the discussions of the “stakeholder dialogue” Licences for Europe, there is a tendency to try to solve profound problems created by the lack of harmonisation of copyright exceptions and limitations by simply licensing special uses even though these uses may be exempted. In the up-coming case, the broader question is how could you justify demanding a licence for what is simply a temporary reproduction which is transient or incidental and is essential to enable browsing of legal content on the web?
UK Supreme Court Decision to refer to the CJEU (17.04.2013)
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0202_Judgm...
(Contribution by Marie Humeau - EDRi)
In a case opposing the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) and Google Spain, Niilo Jaaskinen, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (ECJ ), issued on 25 June 2013 his opinion that, on the basis of the Data Protection Directive, search engine service providers are, in principle, not responsible of personal data appearing on web pages they process.
AEPD requested Google Spain to remove results regarding an auction notice for a repossessed home, based on a complaint from a person who had claimed that the search results were infringing on his right to privacy and who had asked for the removal of the results. Google Inc. and Google Spain have refused to comply with the AEPD’s order and have brought two appeals before the Audiencia Nacional (the Spanish National High Court) to ask for the annulment of AEPD’s decision. The Spanish Court referred the case to ECJ.
“Google is not generally to be considered as a 'controller' of the personal data appearing on web pages it processes , who, according to the Directive, would be responsible for compliance with data protection rules. In effect, provision of an information location tool does not imply any control over the content included on third party web pages.
It does not even enable the internet search engine provider to distinguish between personal data in the sense of the Directive, which relates to an identifiable living natural person, and other data. In his opinion, the internet search engine provider cannot in law or in fact fulfil the obligations of the controller provided in the Directive in relation to personal data on source web pages hosted on third party servers,” said Niilo Jaaskinen in his opinion who therefore concluded: “Requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an interference with the freedom of expression of the publisher of the web page.”
Google officials said Jaaskinen’s statement supported their “long-held view that requiring search engines to suppress ‘legitimate and legal information’ would amount to censorship.”
Index CEO Kirsty Hughes shared this opinion: "It would threaten freedom of expression and information if search engines were required to censor legitimate information that is already in the public domain. The responsibility for content should lie with the original publisher and not an intermediary”.
Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE – Advocate
General’s Opinion (25.06.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-06/cp1300...
Opinion of Advocate General Jaaskinen - Case C 131/12 - Google Spain SL
Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) Mario
Costeja González (25.06.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12
Judging freedom of expression at Europe’s highest court (26.02.2013)
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.be/2013/02/judging-freedom-of-expre...
Spain’s Google privacy case “an interference with the freedom of
expression” (25.06.2013)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/06/jaaskinen-search-engines-not-...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Wettbewerb 'Future of Copyright' 2013
This year, the EDRi member Modern Poland Foundation is again asking people all over the world about their vision of the future of copyright. There are now 4 days to go before the end of the crowd founding campaign and there are 4 weeks left before the deadline to submit the work for the Future of Copyright Contest.
We all feel that it is something wrong with the copyright law and that it doesn't fit to global digital era. There are several competing visions of good intellectual monopoly law and we want to encourage people to dream about the future of copyright they really want for themselves. So what should this future look like? Or what will happen if we won’t change current trends? Maria Swietlik, coordinator of the Contest asks calls on everyone to write, make a movie, sing or animate in order to share their vision.
To take part in this competition one must publish new work on the web until 1 August 2013. The prize is founded by the public so everyone can contribute via Indiegogo website.
Every work will be evaluated by an exceptional jury: Beatriz Busaniche (Via Libre Foundation), Shun-Ling Chen (copyright scholar), Mike Linksvayer (Creative Commons), Jérémie Zimmermann (La Quadrature du Net), Joe McNamee (Executive Director of EDRi) and Jaroslaw Lipszyc, the president of Modern Poland Foundation, the contest organizer.
This is the second edition of this Contest. Last year, the Foundation has raised more than 1 000 USD and several original vision of (a rather dark) future of copyright. “Once upon a time in the wonderful Folklore Valley, a creator wonders about the future of her memetic folktale legacy and decides to take some distance from the anonymous creative practices of her community. The creator is warned by a giant caption. It reads: “Not Wanted”. Despite the warning, the creator leaves her community and starts to sign her work as a mean to legitimise her individual contribution to the folktale scene. On her way to authorship, she encounters the Lawyer and the Publisher…” the story starts. If you are interested what happened next or want to read about the future when you can’t paint even if your therapist recommends you to do it, you should read last year's Future of Copyright Contest best works.
Future of Copyright Contest 2012
http://prawokultury.pl/en/publications/future-copyright-2012/
Support the project or more details on submitting the work
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/future-of-copyright-contest-2-0
Facebook page of the event
https://www.facebook.com/events/579658032055728
You can also ask organizers more details at contest at
nowoczesnapolska.org.pl.
(Thanks to EDRi member Modern Poland Foundation)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: EuGH-Anhörung zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung
On 9 July 2013, the European Court of Justice will have a hearing before the Grand Chamber with two joined cases on the validity of the data retention directive (2006/24/EC).
The two cases were brought by the Irish High Court (C-293/12 Digital Rights Ireland) and by the Austrian Constitutional Court (C-594/12 Seitlinger and Others) and refer to the compatibility of the data retention directive with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The ECJ has advised the parties that the hearing will focus on Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. The judges will explore the purpose and benefits of data retention.
The parties involved have received a series of questions from the Court to be answered at the hearing. Here they are:
"Section II 1 The parties are invited to comment at the hearing as to whether the area covered by the Directive 2006/24 data retention can serve the purpose of detection and prosecution of serious crime. You will be asked in this context to an explanation of the impact it has that many options for anonymous use of electronic communications services exist.
2 The parties will be asked to explain at the hearing as to whether and to what extent it is possible, using the information to create personal profiles and use, from which - independent of the question of the legality of such a process - the social and professional environment a person, their habits and activities are described.
3 As is - especially considering the answer to the question II.2 - the interference with the guaranteed under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to assess individuals whose data was stored?
4 The parties will be asked in light of the case law of the Court that the European Union legislature is obliged to base its choice on objective criteria to answer the following questions at the hearing:
a. In a What objective criteria the EU legislature based its decision in adopting Directive 2006/24?
b. On what data the legislature was to assess the usefulness of data retention for the detection and prosecution of serious crime?
c. Due to data which the legislature could assume that storage of the data over a period of at least six months is required?
d. Are there any statistics which suggest that the detection and prosecution of serious crime since the adoption of the Directive has improved 2006/24?
5 If a protected by the legal order of the EU fundamental rights and protected by the legal system in general interest objective against each other, is the proportionality requires a restriction of the fundamental right in accordance with the case law of the Court that the requirements for the protection of the law with the relevant target be reconciled. The necessary proper balance must be made before the adoption of the measure in question. Moreover, the exceptions and restrictions must be limited to the protection of personal data to the absolute minimum.
- Taking account of this case law, the parties are asked to answer the following questions at the hearing:
a Has the European Union legislature made before the adoption of Directive 2006/24, a proper balance between the requirements of the protection of fundamental rights and the standing at issue in the present case, the public interest? He has in this context the importance of guaranteed under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of fundamental rights and the fact that numerous opportunities for anonymous use of electronic communications services are taken into account?
b. Can be assumed, given the importance of the fundamental rights concerned that the security measures adopted by the data retained in the legislature, necessary and sufficiently precise to prevent any possible abuse? Is it possible in the face of such arrangements that the provider of electronic communications services as defined in Directive 2006/24, the required data storage to other outsourcing service providers in other Member States or in third countries, particularly because of the cost of that storage? What impact does such outsourcing of data storage on the security of data?
c. Can - especially considering the answer to the question to 11.5.3 - be assumed that the legislature has limited the interference with the fundamental rights concerned to the absolute minimum?"
The lawyers of all parties, as well as the Austrian Data Protection Commission will be given 15 minutes speaking time at the hearing. Following the comments of several EU Member States, representatives of the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers, Peter Hustinx, the EU commissioner for data protection, will have the last word.
A final judgement in this case can be expected next year from ECJ.
Data retention: European Court hearing on 9 July - provides
"revolutionary issues" (only in German, 26.06.2013)
https://netzpolitik.org/2013/vorratsdatenspeicherung-europaischer-geri...
“As large a charter as the wind”?* ECJ to hold hearing in data retention
cases, focusing on Charter of Fundamental Rights (15.06.2013)
http://www.contentandcarrier.eu/?p=435
They want to know everything (only in German, 26.06.2013)
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/europaeischer-gerichtshof-zu-datens...
EDRi-gram: EC goes after governments for not implementing data retention
(5.06.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/ec-fines-sweden-data-retentio...
Data Retention in Austria: Constitutional Court turns to the CJEU
(16.01.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.1/data-retention-austria
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: EDRi-Schreiben in Sachen 'Licences for Europe'
EDRi send today, 3 July 2013, the following letter to Commissioners Kroes, Vassiliou and Barnier regarding the Working Group 1 of "Licences for Europe" initiative:
We are very pleased to see that our constructive participation in the Working Group has been noticed and appreciated. However, we deeply regret that the concerns expressed during the discussions are not reflected in the minutes of the meetings, which appears to be a common theme across the whole project.
We are grateful that you recognised the importance of the users' point of view but, in the absence of commercial users in the meetings and so few representatives of civil society, it is very difficult to have a balanced discussion that will give due consideration of all perspectives of the problems encountered with regard to cross-border access and service portability in the European Union. While you refer in your letter to a win-win situation for all stakeholders, it is very hard to understand how such a situation can be achieved in Working Group 1, when not all interests are represented during the meetings. Stakeholder dialogues may be useful if all stakeholders are represented, but unfortunately it is far from being the case here.
In your letter, you plead in favour of a market-led solution that can improve the situation for users and this does indeed sound like an appealing solution. However, most of the presentations have simply elaborated on current practices and did not consider the issue to be discussed: how to facilitate better cross-border services for citizens. We can probably agree that if current practices were the solution, this stakeholder dialogue would not be happening.
European citizens are still facing a weak and poorly serviced market. A market-led solution improving the situation for users is only possible if the legal framework enables service providers to offer proper EU-wide services. Unfortunately, in this context we face problems that have their roots in the EU legal framework. The overarching problem is the territoriality of national copyright laws. Therefore, we strongly believe that the current legal framework should be discussed in this stakeholder dialogue. We are pleased to hear that the European Commission is working on a review of the legal framework and we are not arguing that "Licences for Europe" should be the instance deciding on a reform or not, but we do believe that the current legal framework and the barriers it creates to the realisation of a digital single market should be part of the discussion.
In our opinion, the European Commission made fundamental mistakes when launching this initiative. In particular, it started the search for a solution to certain problems without defining what the problems actually were and then created the four working groups to solve, it appears, four sets of undefined problems. The methodology of the Commission of being “in” this process (launching it, chairing the sessions, preparing minutes, etc), but “outside” the process (and therefore unable to facilitate the creation of clear problem definitions from the outset) is simply not credible and cannot produce credible results.
EDRi strongly believes that the lack of access for EU citizens to more and, more importantly, better legal offers cross-border is a horizontal problem. The division into sub-groups was decided during the first meeting and supported by some members. In the absence of a problem definition, the only thing that was clearly defined is what could not be discussed – the legal framework.
As you have noticed, the representation of civil society and users is a very small minority of the participants, making it difficult to make our concerns heard – this situation being exacerbated by the multiplication of working groups. In reality, the root problem is the same for all sectors: the lack of availability of cross-border access and service portability caused by the application of the current legal framework which should have been the starting point of the discussion. The sub-division would have been justified if reasons had been identified that called for such an approach.
You kindly offer to facilitate our participation to the stakeholder dialogue and to provide financial assistance, for which we thank you. However, we will have to decline this offer as in our view the problem of this dialogue in the discussion is much deeper than only budgetary constraints.
We would be really pleased to meet and discuss further on a potential reform of the EU copyright legislation with the relevant Directorates-General. Nevertheless, due to the lack of productive discussions in Working Group 1, we regret to inform you that we see no other option than to leave Working Group 1 of Licences for Europe. We hope that you will understand our decision and that you will still be open to discussion with us in the future.
European Commission Answer to EDRi and EBLIDA letter of 3.04.2013
(23.05.2013)
http://edri.org/files/EC_Answer_L4EWG1.pdf
EDRi-gram: Licences for Europe: Request to broaden the discussions
(10.04.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.7/licences-for-europe-broaden-di...
ENDitorial: Licences for Europe and fight club... only one rule (13.02.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.3/licences-for-europe-fight-club
EDRi letter from 3 July 2013
http://edri.org/files/L4E_WG1_letter_EDRi_July2013.pdf
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
Support the game "Data Dealer - Legal? Illegal? Whatever." at Kickstarter
http://kck.st/10hzUvJ
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
ECtHR case: Youth Initiative for Human Rights vs. Serbia (25.06.2013)
http://bit.ly/14uqKJF
Digital Agenda: New specific rules for consumers when telecoms personal
data is lost or stolen in EU (24.06.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-591_en.htm
Facebook issues data breach notification - may have leaked your email
and phone number (23.06.2013)
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/06/23/facebook-issues-data-breach...
Bulgaria: Statewatch Analysis: The use and misuse of telephone taps and
communications data by Bulgarian intelligence (pdf) by Alexander
Kashumov (Access to Information Program, AIP)
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-225-bulgaria-tel-tap.pdf
FSFE compliance workshop discovers GPL violation by FANTEC, Welte wins
in court (26.06.2013)
http://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130626-01.en.html
Letter to Google executives on Google Glasses project (18.06.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/o...
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2013/nr-c_130618_e.asp
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
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/
6-11 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
14th Libre Software Meeting
http://2013.rmll.info/en/
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...
9 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Earth Connections and Small Networks: A Greens/EFA workshop in the
European Parliament
http://www.greens-efa.eu/earth-connections-and-small-networks-10200.ht...
31 July – 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
https://ohm2013.org/
7 September 2013, Berlin, Germany
Demonstration "Freiheit statt Angst" / rally against surveillance
http://blog.freiheitstattangst.de/
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/
18-20 September 2013, Berlin, Germany
8th International Conference of Information Commissioners (ICIC 2013)
http://www.info-commissioners.org/index.php/blank-menu/281-8th-interna...
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/
24-25 April 2014, Barcelona, Spain
SSN 2014: Surveillance Ambiguities & Assymetries
http://www.surveillance-studies.net/documents/cfp_SSN2014_Barcelona_fi...