EDRI-gram has obtained 2 secret documents about the draft framework decision on data retention that unveil the positions of individual Member States when it comes to the scope, cost, scale and length of retention. The first document, published on the EDRI website, is the uncensored version of the latest draft framework decision from 24 February 2005, from the Working Party on cooperation in criminal matters to the Article 36 Committee. Both groups are made up of senior officials in the Justice and Home Affairs area, with the Committee in a general coordinating role for the Council.
In this document the Working Party reminds the Committee that the European Commission "had entered a scrutiny reservation on the legal basis for the proposal." Three explanatory paragraphs about the position of the Commission were deleted from the public version.
In these, the Presidency (Luxembourg) is quoted to say that the Commission has not yet provided a written position nor a proposal for a proper first pillar directive (with full co-decision rights for the European Parliament). Therefore the JHA Council will just proceed as planned, ignoring the severe legal protest. "The Presidency concluded that on the present basis work on the draft Framework Decision should continue in line with the conclusions drawn at the Council on 2 December 2004, and recalled that the European Council Declaration of 25 March 2004 provided that measures on retention of traffic data should be examined with a view to their adoption by June 2005."
The names of the individual Member States in the footnotes show which countries have lobbied the hardest for general surveillance of all citizens in the EU. For example Sweden wanted to extend the scope of data retention to all sorts of police cooperation (in stead of mere 'judicial' cooperation), while the UK wanted to reintroduce 'prevention' of crimes to the scope. The Belgian delegates expressed concerns about the provision in Article 7 allowing Member States to subject requests for hand-over of data to any conditions applying nationally. Belgium feared that some Member States would use the lack of dual criminality as an excuse not to hand over data to another country. Denmark was the only country who said they wanted to retain this provision.
The minutes of the Working Party for cooperation in criminal matters from 8 and 9 March 2005 provide even more insight in these debates between Member States. The Presidency has decided to eliminate national rules on the access to data from Article 7, in spite of protest by Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Malta, Lithuania and Latvia. "The second sentence will be cut and pasted in modified wording into a footnote explaining the position of some Member States who supported the conservation."
The Working Party had a difficult meeting on the issues of cost and scale and type of data to be retained. The notes from the first document show the Legal Service of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers expressed reservations about the plan to include a very broad functional list of data that should be retained, and in stead, proposed 'a technically more detailed list and a mechanism to revise that list'. Germany, Austria, Finland and Poland supported this position. The Czech Republic did not get any support for its efforts to change the specific list into a list of options out of which Member States could choose. The Presidency concluded that the framework decision should not become too specific, and possibly contain an attachment with technical specifications with a possibility to update that (mandatory) list. Germany and Austria tried to exclude unsuccessful connections, but were outnumbered by protests from a.o. Denmark, Malta, Spain and Slovakia.
Debating the length of retention, Italy seems to have finally won a majority for its 48 months maximum (in stead of 36 months), supported by France and Poland (in favour of not mentioning any maximum). Again, the Czech Republic found hardly any support for its attempt to get rid of the minimum period of 6 months. Only the UK saw some advantages, but Germany insisted on the minimum of 6 months, arguing that competition in the EU might be disturbed if Member States could opt for a lesser period. In the Czech Republic a new telecommunication law will enter into force on 1 May 2005, granting full cost reimbursement to providers for wiretapping and data retention. The draft Framework Decision leaves it entirely up to Member States to deal with the costs of data retention. Germany and the Netherlands found no support for their initiative to harmonise cost division in the EU (without giving any opinion on who should bear the costs, government or industry).
Last but not least, the delegates debated about access to data. Sweden proposed to limit access to "investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences", but Belgium immediately protested that providers should be able to use the data for commercial purposes. The Presidency supported this latter viewpoint, claiming that the provider is the owner of the data "and therefore it is difficult to limit its access to data."
The next JHA Council takes place on 14 April 2005, but the draft framework decision on data retention has been removed from the schedule. The next meeting of the Working Party takes place on 19 April 2005.
Uncensored report from the Working Party to the Article 36 Committee (24.02.2005)
http://www.edri.org/docs/uncensored.pdf
The United States will not allow for any further delay in the introduction of biometric identifiers in passports of EU citizens travelling to the US. EU Justice Commissioner Frattini sent an urgent letter to the US Congress asking for a delay of 10 months in introducing biometrics in the passports of all EU citizens. In his letter, Frattini states only six EU countries - Belgium, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg - are able to meet the original deadline of 26 October this year. But on 31 March 2005 the chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner, replied that an extension was unlikely.
On 3 December 2004 the Council of ministers of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA Council) adopted a new regulation on biometrics, forcing member states to include two biometric identifiers in passports and travel documents: digitised fingerprints and a face scan. The regulation was published in the Official Journal on 29 December 2004. The technical standards were defined in a Commission decision on 28 February 2005. Face scans have to be included in all new passports before 28 August 2006, fingerprints before 28 February 2008.
The US demands inclusion of a facial image on a contact-less chip in passports in order for EU citizens to continue to use the US Visa Waiver Program. The technical standards for the chip are defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The US originally demanded the EU should comply with the demand for at least one biometric identifier from October 2004 onwards, but allowed for a delay of 1 year. The US will not enforce the biometrics on its own citizens until the end of 2006.
Since 30 September 2004 all visa-free travellers are photographed and fingerprinted upon arrival in the US. After 26 October 2005 all EU travellers to the US will also have to apply for a visa on top of being subjected to hassle at the border to verify their biometrics. EU Commission spokesperson Friso Roscam Abbing told IDG news service the Commission is considering a counter-attack. "The EU will decide in the next couple of weeks if it will require U.S. citizens to obtain visas to travel to EU countries if their U.S. passports lack digitised facial data."
On 30 March the Commission released a new study about the future of biometrics in the EU. The study was ordered by the Europarl Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in June 2004. The study predicts a giant boost in the use of biometrics in everyday life, once businesses follow-up on the mass acceptation of biometrics in passports. This 'diffusion effect' will cause a need for new legislation. Another main conclusion of the study is the need to recognise the limitations of biometrics "and the difference that can exist between the perception and the reality of the sense of security provided." But, as long as the purposes of biometric applications are clearly defined and there is some fall-back procedure in case of failure, the study sees a very bright future for an EU biometrics industry. It is a good thing if governments take the lead with biometrics, because "the unregulated exploitation of intellectual property rights to aspects of biometrics can significantly reduce competition in biometrics and/or distort development, direction and speed of uptake." (p. 16)
The study presents 4 different scenario's with plenty of examples of future use, ranging from the need to use a finger-scan to start an electronic game to presenting a facial scan to be able to use public transport. Possibly schools will use a combination of voice and iris recognition to identify the correct parent and nurses may want to take DNA samples from each newly born.
Under the summary of privacy-issues the study finds that in general, the existing legal framework for data protection is adequate, but concerns may be raised about 'the way the digital data is produced, stored, compared and possibly linked to other information about the individual'. These concerns only seem to affect business applications, for example when the study warns about people trading in their privacy in exchange for some commercial advantage.
Aside from a general remark about an (unfounded) fear of 'surveillance society' the study doesn't condemn the current aspirations in many member states to create a central database with biometric identifiers. It might hurt state p.r., according to the study. "If the precise purpose of holding such data is not clear, or considered ethical and responsible, then this may create a negative impression among citizens. Similarly, the blurring of government agency functionality, for example between immigration and law enforcement, may well be considered negatively by citizens." Only two of the 166 pages (authored by the Dutch legal professor Paul de Hert) explicitly address fundamental privacy concerns. "Common sense pushed people to adopt a critical attitude (that regrettably is hardly echoed in the current legal framework), refusing to accept simple answers about safety and protection when there is little evidence that security technology actually makes us safer." (p. 90)
IDG: Possible U.S.-EU fight looms over biometric passports (04.04.2005)
http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,100...
Commission decision C(2005) 409 (official version in German and French, 28.02.2005)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents...
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents...
Unofficial translation in English
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents...
Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in
passports and travel documents issued by Member States (10.12.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st15152.en04.pdf
EDRI-gram: Rush vote European Parliament on biometrics (02.12.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.23/biometrics
Biometrics at the Frontiers: Assessing the impact on society (30.03.2005)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/doc/biome...
New EU study predicts boost in use of biometrics (31.03.2005)
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18758
E-zine Heise reports that the Administrative Court of Cologne on 31 March 2005 has once more approved of an order to force ISPs to block 2 neo-nazi websites hosted in the US. The order was issued by the district government of Nordrhein-Westfalen in 2002 and aimed at 80 different providers in the region. The providers already saw 7 legal attempts fail to lift the order. Only 1 attempt, on 31 October 2002 at the administrative court of Minden, was successful, in allowing suspension of execution of the order pending full proceedings. A well-known critic of the blocking order, Alvar Freude, also lost his case on 7 October 2004, and was fined the equivalent amount of money of 120 days prison sentence. Freude appealed.
The blocking order is justified, according to the Cologne court and other courts before, because the websites violate different provisions of the criminal law, and thus also violate the new national treaty on youth media protection (entered into force on 1 April 2003). Furthermore, attempts to address the owners of the websites were unsuccessful and the economical costs of blocking the sites are low, according to the Court. The providers may appeal at the higher administrative court of Muenster, 'because of the constitutional implications of the verdict'.
Experts have long doubted the effectivity of the blocking order. EDRI-member FITUG protested in 2003 that "Information legally and widely available in the country of origin is decreed to be made invisible throughout Germany. This reminds us of a very bad experience in Germany's not so glorious past when Germans were not allowed to listen to foreign radio stations like BBC London."
Verwaltungsgericht Köln bestätigt Sperrungsverfügung in NRW (31.03.2005)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/58122
Government overview of previous court cases (in German)
http://www.bezreg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/BezRegDdorf/hierarchie/aufgaben/A...
Original order of the district government of Nordrhein-Westfalen (13.02.2002)
http://www.bezreg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/BezRegDdorf/autorenbereich/Dezern...
Fitug statement (28.01.2003)
http://www.fitug.de/news/pes/21012003_en.html
EDRI-gram: Germany attempts to censor website on censorship (06.10.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.19/censor
Rapporteur Marielle De Sarnez (French, Liberal) of the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education has released her opinion on the proposal of the European Commission to create a new Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity. The report deals with two issues; more liability for ISPs and the introduction of a legal right to reply.
According to De Sarnez "(...)businesses cannot escape their responsibilities under the pretext that parental control is needed to be exercised and governments have a duty to introduce rules that will protect the weakest members of society." That's why 'the liability of access providers needs to be established.' All access providers must create an effective and easy-to-use filter system for children. "Efficient filter technologies exist for the Internet and mobile phones. They are expensive but can be used by the operators present in the market. All that is needed is the political and economic will to distribute them."
Besides, all site providers, producers or distributors must 'describe
proposed content/sites with an update every six months to make it easier
to classify sites using abbreviations common to all Member States.'
Apparently, De Sarnez is thinking of introducing a total ban on internet
publications, unless the proposed content has been classified in advance.
Hard to understand is also the call on governments to oblige 'creators and
producers to post warning banners on all search engines drawing attention
to possible dangers.' Warning! triple x content available
Finally, De Sarnez wants to introduce "a European toll-free number providing information on existing filter methods intended to offset the absence in some Member States of telephone hotlines". These hotlines could have their powers extended "to include the authority to report harmful sites which, even if it relies on subjective judgements, would make it possible to identify such sites so that legal proceedings against the authors could be brought in the future."
On the second issue, the right of reply, the rapporteur wants all EU governments to rapidly introduce a right of reply "to protect any legal or natural person from any information presenting inaccurate facts concerning that person and affecting his or her rights." Following the Recommendation from the Council of Europe on the Right of Reply (15.12.2004) quite literally, De Sarnez wants the right of reply to apply to any medium, defined as 'any means of communication for the periodic dissemination to the public of edited information, whether on-line or off-line, such as newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and web-based news services." The reply should get the same prominence as the contested information.
Draft report De Sarnez (14.03.2005)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/PR/547/547671/...
Proposal Commission: Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity
http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/legis/key_doc/legispdffiles/com04-3...
REC 2004 - 16 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (15.12.2004)
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/press/News/2004/rec(2004)16.asp
EDRI-gram: Council of Europe insists on right of reply (29.12.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.25/reply
In Sweden, for the first time an individual internet user is prosecuted for file-sharing. A young man from Västerås has shared the film 'Hip Hip Hora' via the Internet and is theoretically facing a maximum of 2 years prison sentence. But the public prosecutor doesn't have a lot of confidence in the case. “As these cases do not involve criminals, but instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence would certainly be suspended,” Uppsala prosecutor Katrin Rudström told the newspaper Aftonbladet. Most likely, the case will result in a fine. In that case, the Swedish right-holders will have a hard time starting mass court cases against Swedish file-sharers, because they cannot demand identifying information in case of offences that can be settled with financial penalties.
Meanwhile, Bahnhof, the oldest and largest Swedish ISP, has reached an agreement with the Swedish anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån (APB), thus ending a hilarious P.R. battle between the two. On 10 March 2005, APB convinced police enforcement to raid the offices of the ISP without prior notice and confiscate 4 servers. Triumphantly, the MPA issued a press release announcing 'the file-sharing industry in Sweden was crippled'. But Bahnhof hit back, and accused the anti-piracy group of uploading the illegal material themselves. The rest of the material was allegedly uploaded by employees who acted without their employers knowledge. Bahnhof fired them.
First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net (24.03.2005)
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1172&date=20050324
MPAA: Raid on Sweden’s Oldest and Largest ISP Cripples European Piracy
Scene (in MS-word only, 11.03.2005)
http://www.mpaa.org/MPAAPress/2005/2005_03_11.doc
Aftonbladet: Case against internet-provider terminated (Swedish, 04.04.2005)
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/it/story/0,2789,626694,00.html
The MPA (Motion Picture Association) and the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) are pushing for a new collaboration with internet service providers in Europe. The MPA has drafted a 'possible ISP-Film Sector Voluntary Code of Conduct', while the IFPI called for a similar code in relation to the music sector during a conference of European telecom network operators (ETNO).
The industry demands that providers "remove references and links to sites or services that do not respect the copyrights of rights holders". Providers should also collectively adopt new terms and conditions, to 'require subscribers to consent in advance to the disclosure of their identity in response to a reasonable complaint of intellectual property infringement by an established right holder defence organisation or by right holder(s) whose intellectual property is being infringed,' thus overruling the essential privacy-protection of internet subscribers and without mentioning any right of reply.
The copyright industry doesn't stop there. It also wants providers to develop 'prototype instant messaging language directed at infringers' and a termination of contract for 'recidivists'. Just in case the EU doesn't introduce mandatory data retention, in spite of the repeated lobby of MPAA and IFPI, the providers should voluntarily preserve data/evidence necessary to enforce copyright. And if that isn't enough, ISPs should implement filtering technology to block services and sites that are 'substantially dedicated to illegal file sharing or download services.'
But the most ludicrous demand is the following: "To enforce terms of service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good indicator of infringing activities."
The promoters of the document seem inspired by a French code of conduct signed on 28 July 2004 by 3 French ministers, representatives of the music industry and major ISPs and telecom operators. This code builds on the French e-commerce legislation (providing for notice and take down measures, see a.o. EDRI-gram 2.12) and the revised French privacy and personal data protection legislation. Under the new data protection act, collecting societies and similar representatives of intellectual property rights have the right to create files with telecommunication traffic data of supposed copyright infringers to 'mutualise the battle against the piracy of works' (see EDRI-gram 2.15). The code has already been used to terminate the contracts of subscribers. It also encourages right-holders societies to sue P2P users. According to a recent article by the French weekly magazine 'Le Point', these cases have led to 'a la carte' penalties, corresponding to the commercial sales price of a song.
ETNO has already responded indirectly to these new demands, in a response to the consultation from the Article 29 Working Party of EU data protection authorities. "ETNO Members are also concerned by the constant pressure to overturn the provisions of the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) on ISP liability in order to create a situation where intermediaries are liable for illegal content transmitted across their networks. The Directive states very clearly that no systematic obligation of surveillance or monitoring should be imposed on ISPs. Furthermore, Article 15 of this Directive establishes that ISPs should be subject to no general obligation to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activities." And: "In particular, ETNO fully agrees with the Working Document’s conclusion that personal data can only be transferred in very defined cases provided by Law, only to Public Law Enforcement Authorities, and not to right-holders directly."
The debate will continue during an open WIPO seminar on ISP liability in Geneva, on 18 April 2005.
Announcement WIPO seminar on ISP liability (Geneva, 18.04.2005)
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/2005/wipo_iis/en/
Music biz calls on European ISPs to act against P2P sharing (08.03.2005)
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70163/music-biz-calls-on-european-isps-to-...
French code of conduct: 'Charte d’engagements pour le développement de
l’offre légale de musique en ligne, le respect de la propriété
intellectuelle et la lutte contre la piraterie numérique' (28.07.2004)
www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/conferen/donnedieu/charte280704.htm
Le Point: Piratage - Des sanctions à la carte (31.03.2005)
http://www.lepoint.fr/pointcom/document.html?did=160790
ETNO response to WP 29 consultation on DRM (March 2005)
http://www.etno.be/upload/down_files/9241/RD213%20-%20CL%20DP%20issues...
EDRI-gram 2.12: Notice and take down procedure validated in French law
(16.06.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.12/len
EDRI-gram 2.15: New French data protection act not unconstitutional (04.08.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.15/frenchdpa
(Thanks to Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
On 24 March 2005 the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior issued a radical order to Bulgaria's largest internet providers. Within 7 days the ISPs "must remove all free hosting servers which offer works, audio records, entertaining or business software, images, pictures, books, graphical logos, etc." and notify the department. Remarkably, the order isn't limited to copyright infringement, but bluntly seems to ban all content on free hosting servers.
ISPs in Bulgaria are not forbidden to offer free hosting though, but can only provide free servers larger than 100 MB to identified customers. "More than 100 MB of webspace should be given only to customers with a signed user contract, accompanied with a copy of their ID card or relevant valid document for identification."
The order was issued by colonel Boyko Donchev Nikolov, chief of the department 'Intellectual property, trademark, computer crimes and gambling' within the Ministry of the Interior, in order to stop possible copyright infringement. But the order also obliges providers to remove any other websites, images, pictures and texts that violate Bulgarian law, such as "racial hatred propaganda, pornography, pedophilia, nazism, and websites for gambling and etc."
A spokesperson from provider BOL told the german e-zine Heise that ISPs are very concerned about the impossible time frame to obtain identity papers from many of their customers. As a first measure providers will stop their internal search engines, as they might lead customers to copyright infringing contents.
Veni Markovski from EDRI-member Internet Society Bulgaria comments: "We consider this as an effort by the Police to make ISPs fully liable for the content their customers provide. Currently, ISPs in Bulgaria can only be held liable if they are first properly notified (on paper) by the police about illegal content and secondly would refuse to remove the content. The order seems to be part of a P.R. campaign from the Ministry of the Interior against illegal content. Several people have recently been charged with online teenage pornography, and they use the momentum to create good will with holders of intellectual property rights."
Bulgarien: Webspace nur gegen Personalausweis (31.03.2005)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/58114
A Berlin court has ruled on 22 February 2005 that a meta search engine has exactly the same legal responsibilities as a regular search engine to prevent users from accessing illegal content. A meta search engine doesn't have any databases of itself that could contain possibly illegal content, but should be able to filter the results from other search engines anyhow, according to the Berlin ruling.
The case results from a complaint by a female television host, who tried to prevent the search engine from producing links to possible nude pictures of her. In fact, the links refer to erotic sites that falsely use the names of many media-personalities in combination with the word 'naked'. The search engine declined it was possible to prevent these results from appearing.
The ruling didn't enter into effect immediately. The operator of the meta search engine has appealed and must prove he's unable to block specific results from other search engines and prove it is technically impossible to create adequate blocking.
Summary and full verdict Landgericht Berlin (22.02.2005)
http://www.aufrecht.de/3867.html
Meta search engine
http://www.apollo7.de
Reporters Without Borders has opened an awards competition for blogs defending freedom of expression. The blog of Markus Beckedahl from EDRI-member Neue Medien Netzwerk, www.netzpolitik.org is nominated by RSF as best international blog promoting freedom of expression.
Until 1 June 2005 all Internet-users may vote online for award-winners from among 60 blogs defending freedom of expression. There are six categories: Africa and the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, Europe, Iran and International.
Voters registration
http://www.internet.rsf.org
Cory Doctorow, the European Affairs Coordinator from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (US) has written an excellent statement outlining the dangers of Digital Rights Management. The statement is signed by several other digital rights organisations, including European Digital Rights and was presented to the ITU-R Working Party 6M Report on Content Protection in March 2005.
Digital Rights Management: a failure in the developed world, a danger to
the developing world
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/itu_drm.php
6-8 April 2005, Belfast, Ireland, BILETA 2005
Over-Commoditised; Over-Centralised; Over-Observed: the New Digital Legal World?
http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/bileta2005/callforpapers.html
12 April 2005, Deadline funding applications
Civil rights organisations and initiatives are invited to send funding applications to the German foundation 'Bridge - Bürgerrechte in der digitalen Gesellschaft'. A total of 15.000 euro is available for applications that promote civil rights in the digitised society.
http://www.stiftung-bridge.de
12-15 April 2005, Seattle, USA, CFP 2005
The 15th annual Computer, Freedom, Privacy Conference will be held in the
Westin Hotel in Seattle, Washington with the leading theme 'Panopticon'.
http://www.cfp2005.org
14-16 April 2005, Padova, Italy, FLOSS 2005
http://www.floss2005.org/
21 May 2005, London, UK
Conference: Suspect Communities, the real 'war on terror' in Europe
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/hrsj/events/events_home.cfm
27-28 May 2005, Florence, Italy, E-Privacy Conference 2005
This edition of the foremost Italian conference on privacy in the digital age will focus on automatic data collection and retention. The organising committee is inviting papers from possible speakers. The deadline for submitting papers and presentations is 17 April, notification of acceptance will be given on 24 April. During the conference the first Italian Big Brother Award Ceremony will be held in the stunningly beautiful Palazzo Vecchio.
http://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it/
6-11 June 2005, Benevento (Naples), Italy
Digital Communities 2005
http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~espace/DC2005.html
13 June 2005, Luxemburg, Luxemburg
European Commission Information day on the Safer Internet Plus call for proposals. Further information and registration forms will be available at the
end of April 2005
http://europa.eu.int/saferinternet
17-18 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3d Amsterdam Internet Conference organised by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
11-15 July 2005, Genova, Italy, OSS 2005
http://oss2005.case.unibz.it/index.html
28-31 July 2005, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
What The Hack, major open air hacker / internet lifestyle event. Reduced
early bird entrance fee available until 10 May 2005.
http://www.whatthehack.org/
8-9 September 2005, Brussels, Belgium
EuroSOCAP Workshop on confidentiality and privacy in healthcare. 3 year programme to develop new ethical standards for privacy and patient access to (electronical) files, started on 31 january 2003.
http://www.eurosocap.org