By massive raise of hands on 7 June 2005 the European Parliament adopted the very critical report of Alexander Alvaro on the proposal for mandatory data retention. The European Parliament thus sent a clear signal to the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers that they completely reject the current approach in the third pillar. Under this procedure, the European Parliament only has an advisory role, but no power to amend or reject a proposal. The JHA Council immediately responded in the EP that they would not withdraw the draft framework decision but continue to work on it.
According to the report about the meeting of the JHA Council the ministers reached agreement on mandatory data retention, in principle for 1 year for all kinds of data, both for data that are already processed as well as for data that are only generated but never used by providers, for the purpose of investigation, detection and prosecution of all kinds of criminal offences.
Secondly, the ministers agreed to give the internet industry some extra time to implement the decision, if some countries would think that was necessary. The ministers announced this as a successful compromise, but in reality they only agreed to a delay, without any possibility of not introducing data retention for internet service providers if it turns out that the demand is technically or financially impossible or ineffective or disproportionate.
Thirdly, the ministers agreed to ignore all the protests about the legal basis of the framework decision. They decided that they could continue their work in the third pillar to create mandatory data retention, but would leave the exact details of data definitions and retention periods to the European Commission.
The ministers announced they will continue to discuss the minimum list of data and retention period in the next informal JHA Council, on 8 September 2005, under the UK presidency of the EU. This approach puts the European Commission under extreme pressure to produce a suitable proposal for a first pillar directive about the kinds of data and the time periods. The proposal is now expected to surface in July 2005, during the summer recess of the European Parliament.
The European Commission will have to take both costs for the industry and human rights in general into account, when creating a proposal. Commissioner Viviane Reding announced in response to the agreement in the JHA Council that the Commission would conduct an impact-analysis. When it comes to human rights, on 27 April Commission President Barroso announced that all new directives would have to be examined on their compatibility with the Human Rights Charter. For every legislative process there will have to be an impact assessment on the effect of legislation on individual rights and an examination of the legal reasoning for legislation - with an assessment of its effects on fundamental human rights.
There is still not a single bit of evidence about the pressing social need in a democratic society to introduce the planned immense warehouses with intimate details about the social networks, reading interests and whereabouts of every innocent EU citizen. Hopefully the new Commissioners Group on Fundamental Rights, Anti-discrimination and Equal Opportunities will take this lack of proof, so essential under article 8 of the ECHR, into account before they accept a directive proposal.
Before the EP vote on 7 June 2005, EDRI sent an open letter to the presidents of the political groups in the EP asking them to support of the report of Alexander Alvaro. The letter was translated in French, German, Spanish and Finnish and sent to many individual MEPs. EDRI was informed by a large association of US telecommunication providers, CompTel/ALTS that they share all the concerns about the proposal, especially about the so-called 2-step approach. In a letter to the Commissioners Reding and Frattini and to the Luxembourg presidency they write: "CompTel/ALTS believes that the best solution is that there be no mandatory retention period at all" and "Retention obligations should be based upon demonstrable law enforcement needs and grounded in the experience gained to date in co-operating with the communications industry." On the issue of costs, CompTel explains: "The investment costs alone will be in the hundreds of millions of euros, and annual operating costs could reach tens of millions of euros, the lowest estimates. If, as foreseen by the EU Proposal, the carriers and ISPs need to pay out of their own pockets for storing and providing the data, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will shop around to obtain 'free' traffic data;(...)"
The providers of fixed and mobile telephony in Europe have been remarkably quiet about the proposal so far. The massive resistance of the internet industry might have lulled them into thinking the proposal would be rejected without their help.
EDRI, PI and Statewatch open letter to the EP (06.06.2005)
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/dataretention/openletter
Letter CompTel/ALTS to the European Commission (03.06.2005)
http://www.comptelascent.org/public-policy/international/documents/200...
JHA Council conclusions (in French, 02.06.2005)
http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/conseil/2005/06/02jai/index.html
Luxemburg press release: Agreement on a policy for the retention of telecommunications data (02.06.2005)
http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/communiques/2005/06/02jai-comm/inde...
President Barroso proposes a new framework to 'lock-in' a culture of fundamental rights in EU legislation (27.04.2005)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/05/494&...
Behind closed doors most EU member states have already rejected almost all the amendments on the software patent directive put forward by the European Parliament. On 20/21 June the EP commission on legal affairs (JURI) will vote on the 256 proposed amendments and on 6 July the EP will vote in plenary. In order to immediately proceed with the directive after the plenary vote, the member states are already deciding their joint position.
The Foundation for a free information infrastructure has obtained the minutes from a secret meeting on 27 May 2005 from the representatives of the member states. The Luxemburg presidency explained the nature of the meeting: to find out "which amendments a member state can not accept and which amendments could be acceptable as a compromise."
FFII reports: "Some delegations even mention the potential use of meaningless or even confusing (but non-limiting) amendments for 'negotiation situations' with the EP. The European Parliament has only two choices if it wants to have some say in the rest of the process. The first possibility is approval of all key amendments which limit the scope of the directive. Just one of those may be enough to reach Conciliation (the official discussion between the EP, Council and Commission after the Council's second reading), but is insufficient for a strong negotiation position. If Parliament wants to continue the procedure, without such a steadfast position it could just as well save time by simply approving the current Council text. The second possibility is outright rejection."
Only Poland consistently supports the Rocard amendment, occasionally hesitantly supported by Denmark, Slovakia and France. On the other hand, Austria completely supported the German pro software patent position, in a remarkable change from its earlier abstention in the decisive Council meeting.
The pro software patent stance from the German, Spanish and Dutch delegates is in complete denial of the will of their national parliaments, who all adopted motions to explicitly prevent the patentability of software and modify the Council proposal accordingly, in line with most of the amendments suggested by EP rapporteur Michel Rocard. In the Netherlands, the deputy minister had to apologise in public for the misbehaviour of her patent official, and promise the Netherlands would not say anything anymore on the topic until first approved by parliament.
Meanwhile the pro software patent lobby has reverted to handing out ice-creams to MEPs. On 1 June 2005 Simon Gentry of the Campaign for Creativity convinced an assistant of an important UK MEP from the EPP group to send an email to all members of the Parliament promising them an ice-cream on the Place du Luxembourg that afternoon in exchange for their support for the Council position. Many MEPs were not amused.
FFII: Patent administrators preempting parliaments in Council (06.06.2005)
http://wiki.ffii.org/Trilog050606En
FFII: MEP offers colleagues ice-cream for pro-patent vote (01.06.2005)
http://wiki.ffii.org/CampIcecream050601En
Secret minutes from the Council's patent policy working party (27.05.2005)
http://swpat.ffii.org/log/05/cons0527/
The Swedish anti-piracy group Antipiratbyrån made the news with yet another embarrassing incident. The Swedish data protection authority has forbidden the organisation to collect the IP-addresses of internet users engaging in file sharing. In an incident reported earlier in EDRI-gram, the group convinced the police to raid the offices of Bahnhof, the oldest and largest Swedish ISP, and confiscate 4 servers with unlawfully uploaded content. But Bahnhof in turn successfully accused the anti-piracy group of uploading the illegal material themselves.
The group used special software to record the IP-addresses of file swappers, the file name and the server through which the connection was made, and tried to link them to individuals by sending over 2.000 complaints a day to internet service providers. Thousands of Swedish internet users complained to the DPA about this practice. They found the DPA on their side. The group had no right as a private enterprise to collect the information in the first place, the DPA ruled.
Anti-piracy group broke Swedish data laws (10.06.2005)
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1581&date=20050610&PHPSE...
Decision Swedish DPA (in Swedish, 08.06.2005)
http://www.datainspektionen.se/pdf/beslut/antipiratbyran.pdf
EDRI-gram: First P2P prosecution case in Sweden (06.04.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.7/p2p
According to an article in the Sunday Times, the UK government is considering an extension of the copyright term for recordings. James Purnell, the minister for broadcasting, creative industries and tourism, suggested to extend the term from the current 50 years to the more generous US figure of 90 years. According to him record companies need this to make more money, so they can nurture more new talent. His press release says: "The music industry is a risky business and finding talent and artists is expensive. There is a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record companies can plough money back into unearthing new talent." Presumably he wants Europe to agree a term extension, whether directly or after a unilateral UK move creates a case for 'harmonisation'.
But many IP experts have seriously criticised the reasoning. Songs are protected by a lot of rights. For example, it's just not true that the Beatles songs start to come off copyright in 2013. The main rights appear to be publishing (owned by Michael Jackson for most of the Beatles songs), songwriter royalties (still owned by Lennon's estate and McCartney) and performance (owned by EMI). It's only this last right that starts to run out after 50 years: the others will last until 70 years after Sir Paul McCartney dies.
Thus nobody will be able to freely distribute the Beatles songs in 2014 - it's just that the royalty distribution will change slightly, and in a way that the industry has known about for 50 years. A possible copyright term extension on the other hand will cause a direct loss for creative artists who would like to sample and remix fragments of classic songs without having to pay royalties, and for academics who maintain websites of out-of-copyright recordings of traditional music for study purposes.
Evergreening the record companies' back catalogue will focus executives' attention on that, rather than on new talent. There is a serious risk they will invest more marketing budget on the Beatles than on the latest acts.
On 16 June, Purnell will probably go into more detail about his views on the copyright term, during a lecture at the Institute for Public Policy Research entitled 'Creative Britannia: turning ideas into business'.
Sunday Times: Plan to extend copyright on pop classics (05.06.2005)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1641428,00.html
IPPR announcement lecture Purnell
http://www.ippr.org.uk/events/?id=1511
A Paris court (Tribunal de grande instance) has ordered 10 French ISPs to block access to a website in the US with revisionist/anti-semitic content. They have until 23 June 2005 to make it impossible for their customers to visit the website. The case was instigated by eight anti-racist French organisations, after the US provider (ThePlanet.com) ignored an earlier French court order (from 20 April 2005) to take down the website. The US provider was supposed to accept French jurisdiction over his activities and pay a fine of 5.000 euro per day for not removing the site as well as a fine of 2.000 euro per day for not handing over identifying data about their customer to the French court.
Originally, the anti-racist organisations demanded filtering by the French ISPs of three websites, but were told by the judge to first complain directly at the producers of the content and hosting providers in the US. They convinced two hosting providers to voluntarily remove 2 websites, but couldn't convince the third one. On 30 May 2005 the court evaluated the effects of the take down order to this third US hosting provider. Obviously the judge came to the conclusion that ISP filtering was the only solution left.
The verdict explicitly refers to the French implementation of the e-commerce directive. Under the LCEN (loi pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique) hosting providers can be held liable for content. Access providers, while they cannot be held liable for content they give access to, should comply with a legal order to "take all necessary measures to block the access from the French territory to the content of the on-line communication service hosted at (the foreign) address", as ruled by the judge in this case. This legal order may be issued either in an emergency procedure (référé) or following a reasonably motivated request (ordonnance sur requête), though not involving a contradictory procedure. Despite strong concerns and actions from French civil liberties groups, as well as the Parliamentary opposition, the LCEN was found constitutional (see EDRI-gram Number 2.11).
La justice ordonne aux FAI de couper l'accès à un site Internet (13.06.2005)
http://www.01net.com/outils/imprimer.php?article=281094
Affaire AAARGH: les hébergeurs américains sommés de bloquer le site (22.04.2005)
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,39219410,00.htm
EDRI-gram: French E-commerce law tested in constitutional court (02.06.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.11/len
EDRI-member IRIS file on the LCEN
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/len/
The German administrative court of Düsseldorf has once more rejected complaints from internet access providers in the district of Nordrhein-Westfalen against the order to block access to 2 neo-nazi websites hosted in the US. The order was issued in 2002 against 80 different service providers in the region.
The providers already saw 8 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. All courts have approved the blocking order within the framework of the federal conventions on media services and youth media protection. The Duesseldorf court rejected any problems with the effectivity of the blocking order and followed an approach similar to the French court (see article above).
"Measures to block access to such neo-nazi internet sites can also apply to access providers, since measures against ISPs based in the US, where the sites are created and hosted, don't promise any success and the ISP filtering is technically possible and reasonable."
Today the district court in Stuttgart also tried the appeal case of Alvar Freude, who provided hyper-links to the two censored websites as part of an information campaign on censorship. The outcome is not yet known.
Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf bestätigt Sperrungsverfügung in NRW (14.06.2005)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60627
Heise report about the Alvar Freude case
Hyperlink-Prozess: "Essenzielle Fragen der Meinungs- und Informationsfreiheit" (13.06.2005)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/60552
EDRI-gram: Germany attempts to censor website on censhorship (06.10.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.19/censor
The Irish Times reports about a new development regarding the e-voting system in Ireland. The Irish government invested 60 million Euro in hard- and software from Nedap/Powervote for the European elections in June 2004, but decided at the last minute to cancel the usage, after the Independent Commission on Electronic Voting concluded in an interim report: "(it) has not been able to satisfy itself as to the accuracy and secrecy of the system."
Civil liberty groups and the Labour Party have severely criticised the lack of an audit trail for the voter. The debate about e-voting in Ireland gained intensity in March 2003, when a negative security assessment was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The assessment was carried out by the security company Zerflow at the request of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The Irish Times reports on further controversy "when it emerged that storage of the machines, which had been purchased by former minister for the environment Martin Cullen, would cost millions every year in charges."
Before 21 June 2005 interested parties have to send in a bid on a new round of security and risk assessment. The government advertisement for the tender says: "the successful tenderer will be appointed in July, with the objective to complete the security and risk assessment by the end of the summer".
The security and risk-assessment will encompass the following areas:
- security measures and protections built into the voting machine and ancillary
equipment;
- security hardened stand-alone election PCs; ;
- software encryption and safeguards; ;
- installation and access controls; ;
- risk analysis of potential for insider/outsider attacks, and;
- the adequacy of existing internal/external audit procedures.
Irish Times: Government to test e-voting system (02.06.2005)
http://lists.stdlib.net/pipermail/e-voting/2005-June/005028.html
Report of the Independent Commission on Electronic Voting (15.12.2004)
http://www.cev.ie/htm/report/first_report.htm
EDRI-gram: Source code review of Irish voting machines (03.11.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.21/evoting
The Belgian police has doubled the number of judicial telephone wiretaps in 2004. From 1.336 intercepts in 2003, they went to 2.562 intercepts in 2004. In 2002, the number was below 900. In Belgium, an intercept law was adopted in 1994 that allowed for telephony wiretaps, if authorised by an investigating magistrate and for a limited number of crimes.
The Belgian newspaper De Tijd writes the rise in the number of intercepts is probably due to the greater technical ease since the creation of the Central Technical Interception Facility (CTIF). Also, previously the law demanded that each intercept had to be fully typed out, costing approximately 12 man-hours per hour of intercept. A wiretapping order in Belgium is valid for 6 months, but the police have to report to the investigating magistrate every 5 days.
Previously, EDRI-gram reported about a similar high increase in the number of intercepts in Italy, and a legal comparison between wiretapping practices in many different European countries and the US. With 10.5 million inhabitants Belgium allows for 24.4 intercepts per 100.000 inhabitants. The chart is topped by Italy with 172 judicial intercepts in 2004 per 100.000 inhabitants.
Federale politie luistert recordaantal telefoons af (in Dutch, access for subscribers, 13.06.2005)
http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/artikel.asp?Id=1768045
EDRI-gram: Italian GSM provider warns: too many wiretaps (24.02.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.4/wiretap
EDRI-gram: Italy and the Netherlands top wiretap chart (15.06.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.14/wiretap
The US has signalled that it will modify its biometric passport requirements for travellers from Visa Waiver countries. EU countries have been struggling to meet an October 2005 deadline set by the US to introduce new passports with biometric identifiers.
The 2002 US Border Security Act demands from 27 countries the inclusion of chips with facial images in their passports, in order to continue participation in the US Visa Waiver programme. A deadline was set for 26 October 2004 after which citizens from most EU countries would either have to present a biometric passport or a visa to enter the US. In June 2004 the US House of Representatives agreed to a one-year extension until 26 October 2005.
But most EU countries will not be able to introduce passports with contactless chips by that time. Travellers from those countries would have to apply for visa if the US maintains its demands. This would result in a chilling effect on US tourism and commerce while overstressing the US consular system with visa applications. Governments on both sides of the ocean have been looking for an acceptable solution.
The US are expected to continue to waive the visa for countries that put a digital scan of the holder's photo in the passport. A deadline for the implementation of contactless chips with a digital image will be further delayed. The solution would not help Italy and France. Both countries still put laminated pictures into their passports. Travellers from those countries would be required to apply for visa starting October 2005 if the US will proceed as reported.
U.S. to Delay Stricter Passport Standards (14.06.2005)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005...
US backs down from biometric passports deadline (09.06.2005)
http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=22&aid=19283
The blog of Markus Beckedahl from EDRI-member Netzwerk Neue Medien has won an award as the best international blog promoting freedom of expression. The awards were organised by Reporters Without Borders. They selected around 60 blogs that, each in their own way, defend freedom of expression. The organisation then asked Internet-users to vote for the prize-winners - one in each geographical category.
Award winning blog
http://www.netzpolitik.org
All results of the blog contest
http://www.rsf.org/blog-awards-en.php3
Amnesty International published a scathing report about the results of the war on terror in the EU. Though the report focusses on classical human rights, such as the right to be held innocent until proven guilty, the report accurately describes a legal climate that allows for systematic undermining of civil liberties and fundamental rights. This for example seriously endangers the freedom of speech and applies equally to the online as well as the off-line world.
"The rhetoric of fundamental rights too easily is lost in the legal and technical miasma of EU law, subsidiarity and competing jurisdictions. Counter terrorism measures which impact on the rights of individuals and potentially on legitimate opposition and dissent in society are shrouded in the fog of obscure legislation which leaves those concerned with no effective remedy to the infringement of their rights (...)."
Amnesty International report: Human rights dissolving at the borders? Counter-terrorism and EU criminal law (31.05.2005)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/IOR610132005ENGLISH/$File/IOR610130...
European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. Donations allow EDRI to hire part-time professional assistance in Brussels and invest in targeted campaigns. With the plans for mandatory data retention and the continuous erosion of digital civil rights, your donation could make a huge difference.
If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation, or interest your organisation in sponsorship. We will gladly send you an invoice for any amount above 250 euro to confirm the donation.
KBC Bank Auderghem-Centre, Chaussée de Wavre 1662, 1160 Bruxelles, Belgium
EDRI Bank account nr.: 733-0215021-02
IBAN: BE32 7330 2150 2102
BIC: KREDBEBB
16-18 June, Paris, France
Academic conference 'Critical Approaches to Security in Europe', organised by the European Centre at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques
http://www.portedeurope.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=531
17-18 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
3d Amsterdam Internet Conference organised by OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
http://www.osce.org/fom/item_6_9759.html
20-22 June 2005, Geneva, Switzerland
Inter-sessional Intergovernmental Meeting on a Development Agenda for WIPO
This session will continue discussions and consideration of the proposals submitted by Member States at the First session of the IIM held from 11-13 April 2005. Member States have also been invited to submit additional proposals on the establishment of a development agenda for consideration at this session.
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=8486
22-25 June 2005, Karlsruhe, Germany
The biggest fair and conference on free software, linux and open source
in Europe, the LinuxTag
http://www.linuxtag.org/2005/de/home.html
23 June 2005, London, UK
15th edition of the UK Big Brother Awards
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd³³0³=x-347-209836
28-29 June 2005, London, UK
Annual Conference on New Directions in Copyright, organised by Birkbeck, University of London, UK
http://www.copyright.bbk.ac.uk/contents/conferences/2005conf.shtml
30 June - 1 July 2005, Geneva, Switzerland
International Symposium on Intellectual Property (IP) Education and Research, organised by WIPO
http://www.wipo.int/academy/en/meetings/iped_sym_05/
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. The problems with the municipal authorisation have been solved: the event will definitely take place.
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