This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Irlands Datenschutzbehörde gibt ihren Segen zur Datenweitergabe durch...
The Irish Data Protection Authority (ODPC) has recently ruled that the Irish subsidiaries of Facebook and Apple may perfectly share their users’ data with NSA as this is legal under the EU law.
The ruling comes as a result of the two complaints filed by Europe vs Facebook group: one against Facebook and Apple’s Irish subsidiaries and the other against the European operations of Microsoft and Skype in Luxembourg and Yahoo in Germany, for breaking EU law by sharing data with US intelligence services. The group argued that EU companies may not transfer the data of the European citizens to the US, if the respective data is further on forwarded to the NSA for surveillance without probable cause. The EU law says an export of data to another country is legal only if there is “adequate protection” of Europeans’ privacy.
“In order to avoid taxes US companies have spun a network of subsidiaries. At the same time these ‘tax avoidance strategies’ lead to a situation where the companies have to abide by US and EU laws. This can get tricky when they have to adhere to EU privacy laws and US surveillance laws,” explains the law graduate Max Schrems, the leader of the group.
Yet, ODPC believes there are no grounds for investigating Facebook and Apple European subsidiaries, serenely stating that the European Commission has “envisioned and addressed the access to personal data for law enforcement purposes” (including the PRISM program) in the “Safe Harbor” decision from 2000. The ruling is also informal. ODPC has simply sent an informal letter in response to the legal complaints, instead of issuing a formal decision that could be appealed in courts.
The “Safe Harbor” decision allows the transfer of data to the US as a rule of thumb, but includes exceptions in cases when Europeans’ data is not adequately protected. Which means that ODPC considers the European citizens’ data are actually properly protected even in PRISM case.
“We consider that an Irish based data controller has met their data protection obligations in relation to the transfer of personal data to the U.S. if the U.S. based entity is 'Safe Harbor' registered.”
The position of the German data protection authorities is totally opposed to that of ODPC. The German authorities sent a letter to German Chancellor, only a day before ODPC’s ruling, saying that, after the PRISM scandal, it is clear that the “Safe Harbor” cannot guarantee an “adequate level” of privacy for data exported to the US.
There is no reaction yet from Luxembourg.
Unbelievable: Facebook and Apple may forward data to PRISM under EU law
Irish Authority rules that Europeans’ data is adequately protected
(25.07.2013)
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/PA_en_25_7.pdf
Irish DPC: EU has 'envisaged' PRISM in the year 2000. Facebook and Apple
may share data with NSA under EU law (25.07.2013)
http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html
Facebook, Skype challenged in EU over spy affair (18.07.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120894
Complaint filed against Irish subsidiaries of Apple, Facebook (26.06.2013)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/complai...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Endlich! EU-Kommissarin stellt „Safe Harbor“-Abkommen in Frage
On 19 July 2013, during the informal Justice Council in Vilnius, Lithuania, EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding stated for reporters that her services will be reviewing the so-called Safe Harbor Agreement.
The agreement, concluded 13 years ago between the US department of commerce and the European Commission, based on a clause in the current 1995 EU Data Protection Directive, does no longer seem as "safe" as the title currently implies.
"The Safe Harbour agreement may not be so safe after all. It could be a loophole for data transfers because it allows data transfers from EU to US companies – although US data protection standards are lower than our European ones. I have informed ministers that the Commission is working on a solid assessment of the Safe Harbour Agreement which we will present before the end of the year," said Reding.
Within the agreement, around 3 000 companies have voluntarily signed up to follow a binding set of data transfer rules based on seven principles - notice, choice, onward transfer, security, integrity, access, and enforcement. However, the agreement includes low data protection standards.
In 2010, the US consultancy company Galexia found a number of irregularities in the agreement and reported that 200 companies had falsely claimed to have joined the agreement and that only 350 companies had complied with the minimum standards of the agreement.
Hence, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued orders on Twitter, Google, Facebook and MySpace to be regularly audited and in November 2012, asked Google to pay out 22.5 million dollars for having planted cookies on Apple’s Safari Internet browser.
Reding’s announcement on Safe Harbor comes in the context of the PRISM programme revelations which have pushed the European regulators to finalise negotiations on the data protection regulation and its adjoining directive, the post-Stockholm programme on future justice priorities. The German and French ministers have sent a joint-letter to the legislative saying that the negotiations between the European Parliament and the member states for the data reforms should be finalised before the end of the Lithuanian EU Presidency that is, by the end of 2013.
“It is good to see that the French and German ministers have reaffirmed, in a joint declaration, that we need a high level of data protection for European citizens, which strikes the right balance between freedom and security.
It is also good to see that they have both committed to quickly adopting the reform of Europe's data protection rules that the Commission put on the table in January 2012.
PRISM has been a wake-up call. The data protection reform is Europe's answer," said Reding in Vilnius.
EU questions decade-old US data agreement (22.07.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120919
Informal Justice Council in Vilnius (19.07.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-710_en.htm
The EDRi member from Turkey Alternative Informatics Association together with other 11 NGOs from Turkey issued the following public announcement with the title "Reclaiming our rights on social media following the Gezi Park protests":
UN and some international organizations have declared Internet as the main tool of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Internet and social media are indispensable for the individual to progress, for the individual to take part in society and for a sustainable democracy. Around the whole world masses demand access to information, transparency and participative democracy.
Freedom of expression, freedom to protest and privacy are fundamental human rights. Freedom of expression also consists of dissent. However, defamation, hate speech and call for violence are not included in freedom of expression.
Social media have changed communication and organization styles considerably. Social media is not a “menace” to society, but in the contrary, they are group of tools that are highly valuable for the society.
The use of social media is not an illegal act, but it is part of communication freedom, which is a constitutional right. Eavesdropping into others’ social media communication however is illegal. According to 22nd article of the constitution of the Turkish Republic “everyone has the right to communicate freely. One of the fundamentals of communication is privacy”
Gezi Park protests show us that social media supports the right seeking attempts of the citizens perfectly. This support is performed in order to resolve the information asymmetry between the citizens and the government. Since almost all the Turkish press was ignoring the truth or openly fabricating news, the social media allows the population to learn the truth.
Social Media sharing activities that do not contain defamation, hate speech or call to violence are not a crime. These activities include sharing protest locations and times or sharing medical information such as doctor or pharmacy locations for those who have been exposed to violence.
Citizens may use pseudo names or nicknames while sharing content on Social Media. This is one of the most common practices of the Internet and it is not a crime according to Turkish Republic’s criminal law.
The reason to regulate social media or making it a crime to share content on social media is to threaten people and force them into self-censorship. Self-censorship is one of the most terrifying violations of freedom of expression, information and communication. In a constitutional state where democracy is operational, we cannot accept the authorities to force the citizens to self-censorship.
Technology
Twitter, Facebook, Gmail and Hotmail carry information in an encrypted form. It is almost impossible to decrypt or break encrypted information. Having a small lock icon on the address bar of the browser and "https://" prefix instead of "http://" ensures encrypted communication.
It is not possible for third parties to peek through these user data on the Internet in a decrypted form. However all these data are stored in servers in a decrypted form that are mostly operated by American companies. These companies can see and share all user data.
According to various sources including government sources, Facebook is sharing user data with Turkish authorities, while Twitter is refusing data sharing at this moment.
According to the general public opinion, companies that operate Gmail and Hotmail (Google and Microsoft) are sharing user data with authorities over the world.
Communication in Turkish: Sosyal Medya ve Haklarımız
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Sosyal_Medya_ve_Haklar%C4%B1m%C4...
Communication in French: Les médias sociaux et nos droits
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Les_m%C3%A9dias_sociaux_et_nos_d...
(Thanks to EDRi member Alternative Informatics Association - Turkey)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Barrierefreier Zugang zum Netz: Wie lange müssen wir noch warten?
Access to the so-called Digital Society through the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is increasingly gaining importance in our everyday life. Access to the web, where these technologies usually converge, is already a fundamental right that everyone should enjoy, including persons with disabilities, who represent 15 % of the European population. Today, ICTs and the web are the gateway to public services, education, employment, leisure etc. Therefore, they are also a great opportunity to combat isolation and social exclusion by ensuring the participation of persons with disability in all aspects of digital life.
In the same way that architects must bear in mind accessibility requirements when designing a building, web-developers have at their disposal the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which are the globally acknowledged tool for making websites accessible to all. These guidelines became an international standard last year (ISO/IEC 40500:2012), and will also be included in the future European Standard which is in process under the European Commission Mandate 376.
Why build an accessible website?
Besides the fact that it is not complex at all to make a website accessible (see the 10 golden rules recommended by the Commission), web accessibility also has other advantages: the overall usability and users’ web experiences are improved for everyone; the maintenance costs are reduced since the structure is consistent and therefore easier to maintain over time; search engines can more accurately index the content of accessible websites, as all content must be tagged properly in the HTML structure of the website and, finally, accessible websites are more easily used on tablets and smartphones, since the accessibility and mobility requirements are very similar.
For years, the European disability movement has been raising awareness of the importance of web accessibility. We have pointed out the need for binding legislation to this regard, but in the past ten years non-binding instruments have failed to deliver their promises (e.g. the 2006 Ministerial Declaration of Riga assuring the accessibility of all public websites by 2010). Nowadays, less than one third of public authorities’ websites are made accessible which also means that many services provided online are out of reach for persons with disabilities.
What first steps have been made?
Through the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2011, the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, and the Digital Agenda for Europe, the European Institutions re-edited their commitment to address web accessibility (before 2015, according to action 64 of the Digital Agenda). Finally, on 3 December 2012, the European Commission issued a proposal for a Directive on accessibility of public sector bodies’ websites (COM(2012)721 final).
The European disability movement welcomed the legislative proposal as a first positive step towards the removal of all barriers to access the web. However, despite the Commission's will to develop this specific measure, the scope of the proposal was clearly restrictive, since it includes just twelve types of websites and web-based public services. Such a narrow scope would not provide a systematic change within the web for persons with disabilities.
Fortunately the European Parliament has listened to the users and has understood that web accessibility is indispensable for persons with disabilities. The EP rapporteur of this proposal, MEP Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (IMCO Committee), and the majority of the shadow rapporteurs agree on the necessity of widening the scope to include all public sector bodies’ websites, as well as those services of general interest which are usually provided by other entities such as public transport, health related services, banking services or utility services (gas, water, electricity...).
The period for tabling amendments is over and after the summer break the IMCO committee will need to reach consensus on other relevant issues regarding this Directive. We believe that without an effective enforcement mechanism and an efficient monitoring system, involving persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, this proposal for a Directive will not be able to ensure the accessibility of the websites concerned. This proposal will be a test of the real commitment of the European Institutions to ensure web accessibility for persons with disabilities, so that no one is left behind and no digital rights are undermined. As citizens and Internet users, we must join forces to push for equal rights and the same opportunities to “access” them.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/
ISO/IEC 40500:2012
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc
/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=58625
Mandate 376
http://www.mandate376.eu/
European Commission’s 10 Golden Rules
http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/standards/accessibility/10_rules/
Web accessibility advantages
http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/
2006 Riga Ministerial Declaration
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/decla...
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150
European Disability Strategy 2010-2020
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC063...
Action 64 of the digital agenda
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-vi-enhancing-digital-lite...
Proposal for a Directive on accessibility of public sector bodies’
websites (COM(2012)721 final)
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/proposal-directive-european...
accessibility-public-sector-bodies-websites
The European Disability Forum (EDF) is an independent NGO that
represents the interests of 80 million Europeans with disabilities. EDF
is the only European platform run by persons with disabilities. EDF is
the voice of persons with disabilities in Europe. More information at
http://www.edf-feph.org
(Contribution by the The European Disability Forum)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Irland: Führend bei der Abfrage von Vorratsdaten
During the ECJ hearing on 9 July 2013 considering the legality of the European Data Retention Directive, it has come out that the Irish authorities are champions in requesting people’s data stored on phone or Internet, having made several times more such requests than other countries comparable in size.
The Data Retention Directive limits the use of such data to combating serious crime and terrorism. However, the Irish representative, told ECJ judges that “6 000 to 10 000” requests were made annually under the Irish law.
According to the a 2012 European Commission report regarding the data requests made in 2010 by member states, cited at the hearing as evidence in support of the directive’s implementation, Irish authorities (including the Garda, Revenue Commissioners and Defence Forces) made 14 928 data orders. The Department of Justice has recently confirmed 12 675 data requests for 2011. A spokesman for the Department of Justice told The Irish Times: “The communications data retention statistics for Ireland for 2012 are in the order of 9,000 requests.”
The UK refused to disclose figures at the ECJ hearing.
Meanwhile the counsel representing Austria, which is comparable in size with Ireland, said authorities had made 326 requests for data in a recent one-year period. Irrespective of which figure is considered for Ireland, the discrepancy is more than obvious.
To make thinks even worse, the spokesman from the Irish Department of Justice refused to give any details on the nature of the requests, stating: “It is not the practice nor would it be in the public interest to go into further detail of the provision of the data to the relevant authorities.”
At the same time, during the ECJ hearing, the representative of the Austrian government provided an extensive set of figures about the use of data stored by internet services and telecommunication providers, according to the Austrian data retention implementation programme (which is presently challenged at the Austrian Constitutional Court).
The classification of the cases presented by Austria - 16 thefts, 12 drug cases, 12 cases of stalking, 7 frauds and 9 others – brought about a critical question from ECJ Judge Thomas von Danwitz, the main court rapporteur for the case: "Was there a terrorist case?"
If none of the 326 requests made by Austria is about terrorism or serious crime, could we imagine what the 10 000 requests made by Ireland are for?
None of the representatives of the Member States present at the hearing was able to offer more solid statistics or any scientific data that would support the necessity of the directive.
State agencies target Irish phone and internet records (25.07.2013)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/state-agencies-t...
Data retention might not be proportional to risks (9.07.2013)
http://policyreview.info/articles/news/data-retention-might-not-be-pro...
EDRi-gram: Data retention: "We ask the Court to rule in favour of
Freedom" (17.07.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.14/data-retention-hearing-ecj-2013
For some time now there has been a need to update understandings of existing human rights law to reflect modern surveillance technologies and techniques. Nothing could demonstrate the urgency of this situation more than the recent revelations confirming the mass surveillance of innocent individuals around the world.
To move toward that goal, today we’re pleased to announce the formal launch of the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. The principles articulate what international human rights law – which binds every country across the globe – require of governments in the digital age. They speak to a growing global consensus that modern surveillance has gone too far and needs to be restrained. They also give benchmarks that people around the world can use to evaluate and push for changes in their own legal systems.
The product of over a year of consultation among civil society, privacy and technology experts, the principles have already been co-signed by over hundred organisations from around the world. The process was led by Privacy International, Access and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The release of the principles comes on the heels of a landmark report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which details the widespread use of state surveillance of communications, stating that such surveillance severely undermines citizens’ ability to enjoy a private life, freely express themselves and enjoy their other fundamental human rights. And recently, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Nivay Pillay, emphasised the importance of applying human right standards and democratic safeguards to surveillance and law enforcement activities.
“While concerns about national security and criminal activity may justify the exceptional and narrowly-tailored use of surveillance programmes, surveillance without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,” Pillay said.
The principles, summarised below, can be found in full at necessaryandproportionate.org. Over the next year and beyond, groups around the world will be using them to advocate for changes in how present laws are interpreted and how new laws are crafted.
We encourage privacy advocates, rights organisations, scholars from legal and academic communities, and other members of civil society to support the principles by adding their signature.
To sign, please send an email to rights at eff dot org, or visit
https://www.necessaryandproportionate.org/about
International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to
Communications Surveillance
https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text
Towards international principles on communications surveillance (21.11.2012)
https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/towards-international-princi...
Spies Without Borders Series: Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the
World (8.06.2013)
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders
UN report: The link between State surveillance and freedom of expression
(4.06.2013)
https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/un-report-the-link-between-s...
(Contribution by Katitza Rodriguez - EDRi member Electronic Frontier Foundation, USA)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: GB: Automatische Kennzeichenerfassung illegal
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), UK's data protection authority, issued on 24 July 2013, an Enforcement Notice asking the Hertfordshire police to stop using a vehicle plate tracking system that it considered as unlawful.
The ICO notice is a result of a complaint made in June 2013 by No CCTV, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch against the so-called “Ring of Steel” of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras around the small town of Royston which is tracking all cars entering or leaving the town.
The data collected by ANPR cameras is stored both in local force databases and in a centralised database. License plate photos are stored for two years and photographs of cars are stored for 90 days. The notice issued by ICO said that the seven cameras around the town had "effectively made it impossible for anyone to drive their car in and out of Royston without a record being kept of the journey".
According to ICO inquiries, the Hertfordshire Constabulary failed to carry out "any effective impact assessments" before implementing the system and decided that the system breached the Data Protection Act.
"It is difficult to see why a small rural town such as Royston, requires cameras monitoring all traffic in and out of the town, 24 hours a day. The use of ANPR cameras and other forms of surveillance must be proportionate to the problem it is trying to address. After detailed enquiries, including consideration of the information Hertfordshire Constabulary provided, we found that this simply wasn’t the case in Royston. We hope that this enforcement notice sends a clear message to all police forces, that the use of ANPR cameras needs to be fully justified before they are installed,” stated ICO's head of enforcement Stephen Eckersley.
By this complaint, the three groups raised serious concerns over the entire nationwide ANPR network which has been constructed by the police without any public debate.
Charles Farrier of No CCTV welcomed ICO’s decision: "This is a landmark decision. The ICO has validated our view that blanket vehicle tracking should have no place in a democratic society. The Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera network amounts to an automated checkpoint system that is the stuff of totalitarianism. The ICO has ruled strongly within the constraints of the Data Protection Act.”
ICO said that other UK police forces should be taking note of this decision: "We hope that this enforcement notice sends a clear message to all police forces, that the use of ANPR cameras needs to be fully justified before they are installed. This includes carrying out a comprehensive assessment of the impact on the privacy of the road-using public."
The Hertfordshire Constabulary stated it would not appeal this decision and accepted the system needed additional privacy checks. It also state that although it would continue to use such camera, it intended to work with the Commissioner to “ensure that its particular deployment of such cameras is - and is seen to be - fully justified."
"We have already undertaken considerable analysis of the justification for the use of these cameras in Royston and we have welcomed the Commissioner's offer of further advice on strengthening our privacy impact assessments," also said the police statement.
Article corrected on 11.09.2013 - correctly attribution of the statement ""We hope that this enforcement..."
Press Release – ICO Rules Royston Vehicle Number Plate Tracking Cameras
Unlawful (24.07.2013)
http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/press/press_release_23.pdf
Data protection Act 1998 – Supervisor Powers of the Information
Commissioner Enforcing Notice (15.07.2013)
http://www.ico.org.uk/enforcement/~/media/documents/library/Data_Prote...
Police number plate camera scheme broke law in Royston (24.07.2013)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23433138
ICO slams police for invading motorists' privacy with 'unlawful' ANPR
camera use (24.07.2013)
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2284452/ico-slams-police-for-invading-m...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: ENDitorial: Belgische Bahn – ein Paradebeispiel für mangelnde Siche...
Earlier this year, we reported on the major data leak that was suffered by Belgian railways. Following the release of the data – including names, email addresses and even, in some cases, phone numbers and home addresses - the company failed to notify their customers of the leak.
The company practices has unfortunately not improved since this episode. In recent weeks, it sent out an e-mail asking clients if they wanted to opt out of receiving marketing communications, without clarifying whether they were referring to online or offline communications and without clarifying what would happen (default opt-in or default opt-out) if people decided to take no action.
The e-mail is impressive in that it manages to contain virtually every characteristic of a fraudulent (“phishing”) e-mail:
1. The salutation in the e-mail is non-personal. 2. The reply-to e-mail address is different from the sender e-mail address. 3. Neither the reply-to nor sender e-mail address are obviously SNCB e-mail addresses. 4. The e-mail contains links asking people to fill in an “online form”. 5. None of the links in the e-mail point to a website owned or controlled by the SNCB. 6. Because the e-mail was sent in HTML, the characters do not decode in all webmail services, making it appear that the text has been altered automatically to bypass spam filters. 7. The subject-line (“information to clients”) is vague, increasing the likelihood that it will be opened, in case it might contain important information. 8. The e-mail sets a time-limit for responding – if you do not act within the deadline that you have to go through a more cumbersome procedure.
The logic behind the e-mail is baffling. If the SNCB were already behaving appropriately with regard to their direct marketing, there would be no obvious need to send this e-mail. People who receive the e-mail are given a choice between taking the risk of clicking on the links in the message or, it appears, passively giving their consent to receiving unspecified numbers of marketing messages, via unspecified media from unspecified sources, which they could only opt out of through more cumbersome methods.
Whether the Belgian data protection authority would consider this e-mail to be an acceptable opt-in, opt-out or something else is almost irrelevant, because the authority has extremely weak enforcement powers in any case.
The only thing that is certain is that any SNCB subscriber who did avail of this opportunity to opt-out of direct marketing messages will have been shown that e-mails that contain pretty much every possible characteristic of a phishing e-mail may not, in fact, be a phishing e-mail. So, next time they receive a phishing e-mail, it will probably be okay to click on the link.
EDRi was able to verify the validity of the e-mail because one of us has a “wildcard” e-mail system for a personal domain name. Whenever this person gives their e-mail address to a company, the address given is thatcompanysname@thedomainname.com. As the e-mail was sent to sncb@, it was easy to identify it as authentic. Or it would have been, if the company hadn't leaked it.
List of phishing e-mail characteristics
http://www.infosec.gov.hk/english/anti/phishing.html
The SNCB e-mail
http://edri.org/files/sncb.png
EDRi-gram 11.1: Major data leak at the Belgium railway company (16.01.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.1/sncb-europe-major-data-leak
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Mitmachen!
Sign the Open letter to stop surveillance initiated by EDRi member Digitale Gesellschaft (Germany)
http://www.stopsurveillance.org/en/
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Lesestoff
OSCE media freedom representative warns UK, Internet filtering
ineffective, open to abuse (23.07.2013)
http://www.osce.org/fom/103848
Report Challenges Assumptions On IP Valuation And Cybercrime (07.2013)
https://csis.org/files/publication/60396rpt_cybercrime-cost_0713_ph4_0...
PRISM revelations result in lost business for US cloud companies
(26.07.2013)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/prism-revelations-result-in...
EDPS on smart borders: Smart borders: key proposal is costly, unproven
and intrusive (19.07.2013)
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Docume...
This article is also available in:
Deutsch: Agenda
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/
16-18 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...
