The Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (CoE MC-S-IS) held its 4th meeting on 9-10 March in Strasbourg, with EDRI participating in its capacity of non governmental observer. Among the many issues on the agenda were:
- the analysis of answers to the questionnaire sent by the group to CoE member States on their implementation of the CoE Declaration of freedom of communication on the Internet (only 7 out of 46 answers received so far); -the review of the CoE Recommendation on media coverage of election campaigns taking into account new medias, the mapping of human rights issues and guidelines with regards to roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders; - the development of strategies promoting digital inclusion and Internet literacy; - the program of the next CoE Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society to be held in Erevan in early October 2006.
EDRI-gram is making public the questionnaire on freedom of communication, and will report on these issues as they develop in the future.
An important part of this meeting was dedicated to the discussion of a preliminary draft CoE instrument on "harmful" content. This work is a core aspect of the group mandate, since MC-S-IS terms of reference state, inter alia, that it should "elaborate the meaning of "harmful content", as referred to in Council of Europe instruments, in order to promote coherence in the protection of minors in all media in the Information Society". It has been made clear for almost 10 years in other arenas, and specially within the EU and the OSCE, that human rights standards on freedom of expression should apply on-line in the same way as they do off-line. A clear difference should be made between illegal content and content which, though legal, may be considered as harmful to specific categories of persons, like children and young people.
It is also generally accepted that "harmful" content is hard to define at a global level as the "risk of harm" perception is highly depending on culture, education and other aspects that vary among and within societies. Even as regards illegal content, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed this essential diversity in two different cases. First in the Müller v. Switzerland case (no. 41202/98, §35, 5 November 2002) and reconfirmed in one of its first Internet case law (Perrin v. the United Kingdom, Decision on admissibility, no. 5446/03, 18 October 2005). "Today, as at the time of the Handyside judgment ..., it is not possible to find in the legal and social orders of the Contracting States a uniform European conception of morals. The view taken of the requirements of morals varies from time to time and from place to place, especially in our era, characterised as it is by a far-reaching evolution of opinions on the subject."
Despite this well-established background, a study commissioned by the MC-S-IS Secretariat and presented during the 2005 CoE Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society still tries to mix the illegal and harmful content issues. The authors of this research report, Rachel O'Connell and Jo Bryce, from the University of Central Lancashire (UK), attempt to define a "taxonomy-based risk identification methodology", ranging activities, behaviours and contents from "normal" to "proscribed", considering in between those that represent a "risk of harm". The danger of such categorization resides not only in the caricatural globality of moral judgements (by qualifying what is "normal" and what is "deviant"), but also in this attempt to identify a continuum between "harmful" and "illegal" categories. This, inevitably, leads the authors to make highly controversial recommendations such as "it is hoped that the 'risk of harm' construct will serve as a key function of the developing horizontal and harmonised policies and mechanisms for the regulation of European cross-media content and services."
Fortunately, after strong criticisms during the 2005 CoE Pan-European Forum and the 3rd and 4th MC-S-IS group meetings, notably from EDRI, ENPA (The European Newspaper Publishers Association) and many CoE member States participant in the group of specialists, it is expected that the CoE won't endorse such an approach. It has been decided that the draft CoE instrument prepared by the group will mainly focus on "Responsible use, education, well-being and empowerment of children and young people using the Internet and related communication services and technologies", as its provisional title now reads, rather than on attempting to define "harmful content". The 4th working group meeting has again helped to remove the main dangers of the draft text, making it more consistent with the general CoE background of respect for and upholding of human rights, as well as with its specific efforts on media education and media literacy (a 2nd edition of the CoE 'Internet Literacy Handbook' has just been released).
Next steps are to be finalise, through on-line discussions, the drafting of the text so that the draft instrument may hopefully be discussed at the next meeting of the CDMC (Steering Committee on Medias and Communications, under the CoE Human Rights DG, scheduled by end of May 2006) and then submitted to the CoE Committee of Ministers, which should decide on its approval. This instrument may become either a CoE Declaration or a CoE Recommendation, its status being still under discussion.
CoE MC-S-IS public website
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co-opera...
EDRI-gram : EDRI Granted Observer Status In CoE HR Group (29.06.05)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/EDRI
EDRI-gram : Human Rights In The Information Society On CoE Agenda (21.09.05)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/CoE
CoE MC-S-IS questionnaire to member States on their implementation of the
Declaration on Freedom of Communication (English and French, made public by
EDRI on 15.03.06)
http://www.edri.org/docs/CoE-questFoC-en.pdf
http://www.edri.org/docs/CoE-questFoC-fr.pdf
CoE Internet Literacy Handbook, 2nd edition (English and French versions)
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Media/hbk_en.html
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Media/hbk_fr.html
(Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
During a high-level panel discussion at CeBIT 2006 Mrs. Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Information Society and Media, announced a new public debate on RFID, organised by the European Commission. Its purpose is to make an inventory of concerns that might necessitate legislative changes.
Mrs. Reding said that "These networks and devices will link everyday objects into an 'internet of things' that will greatly enhance economic prosperity and the quality of life. But as with any breakthrough, there is a possible downside - in this case, the implications of RFID for privacy".
The public debate will rely on a series of workshops addressing RFID applications, end-user issues, interoperability and standards & frequency spectrum requirements. These workshops will take place in Brussels between March and June 2006 and their conclusions will assist the European Commission in drafting a working document on RFID. This document will be published in September in an online consultation. Additional feedback obtained will then be analysed and integrated in a Commission Communication on RFID, to be adopted before the end of the year. This feedback could lead to amendments of the e-privacy-Directive, which is up for review this year. The Communication will also address the need for other legislative measures for RFID, such as decisions on allocation of spectrum.
These activities are supported by the EU commission at a time when the growth of the RFID market is impressive, with 600 million tags being sold in Europe only in 2005. The value of the market, including hardware, systems and services, is expected to be multiplied by 10 between 2006 and 2016.
The growth is underlined also by a new Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) rapport considering that RFID is gathering momentum. The report, called "RFID Comes of Age", is also warning the industry about the privacy concerns of this new technology, recognising that "there are genuine issues to be resolved, such as the ability for anyone with an RFID reader to track people by the items they wear or carry."
The authors are also suggesting that RFID tags be deactivated at point of sale to allay privacy concerns, but not require the permanent "killing" of stored data, as this would limit users' ability to opt-in to interesting post-sale applications that benefit consumers as well as businesses.
Lack of RFID security also made the news worldwide a few weeks ago. During the annual RSA conference in San Jose, cryptographer Adi Shamir talked about the possibility of bypassing security mechanisms on RFID tags by reading their power usage. Sending a wrong password to an average 8bit tag would result in extra power usage, because a note is made in the RAM memory that it is a wrong bit and the rest of the message has to be ignored. In theory, people could just use a mobile phone to do this.
The industry replied that this criticism was out of place; there is already a new generation EPC approved chips with 32 bit security. That increases the number of options for a password from 256 to 4 billion, thus making it a lot less attractive to fool around with a directional antenna and an oscilloscope.
Recently, researchers Melanie Rieback and Patrick Simpson, supervised by the renowned cryptographer Andy Tanenbaum, from the Amsterdam Free University have proven the possibility to introduce virusses through corrupted RFID tags. They can create a buffer overflow in the reading device, thus creating an opening that enables further access to the system, including the databases behind it.
Commission launches public consultation on radio frequency ID tags
(9.03.2006)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/289
Towards an RFID Policy for Europe
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/rfid/index_en.htm
Industry uptake of RFID increases despite privacy concerns (8.03.2006)
http://store.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=pr_story&press_id=990001899&...
Growth of RFID must respect privacy, says EIU (9.03.2006)
http://www.out-law.com/page-6715
Cellphone could crack RFID tags, says cryptographer (24.02.2006)
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1802016...
RFID Security: A Reality Check (27.02.2006)
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleprint/2170/-1/1
RFID Viruses and worms
http://www.rfidvirus.org/
On 2 March 2006, the German Constitutional Court has ruled that emails and mobile phone text messages that have already been transmitted and are still stored on the recipient's device do not fall under the special constitutional protections for telecommunication privacy. The decision was made after a German judge had her computer seized by law enforcement agencies who suspected her of having given internal information to journalists (which could not be confirmed later). The constitutional court decided that emails and similar messages, but also called numbers and numbers of received calls that are still in the address book of a phone, can be treated like files and other documents that do not fall under the constitutional protection for telecommunications. This means that law enforcement agencies can seize these data even in simple crime cases, whereas telecommunications interception is only possible for the investigations of severe crimes and after approval by a judge.
The constitutional court, in the same decision, also limited the amount of data and electronic information that can be seized. The suspect, according to the decision, is still protected under the right to informational self-determination, which the supreme court had developed from the "human dignity"-clause in the German constitution in its famous 1983 census ruling. This means that the police has to take into account the principle of proportionality. They can no longer take away the whole computer or other equipment and sift through all the data stored on it - a common practice so far. Under the new decision, they now have to search the suspect's equipment on location and are only allowed to copy or print out the data specifically relevant to the actual case.
The reactions to the decision were mixed. While some called it bad for the privacy of communications, others applauded the strengthening of the proportionality principle. This might have an impact on German legal discussions about mandatory data retention. German privacy groups are currently getting organized to prepare a constitutional challenge, and they will certainly point out that the retention of all traffic data of every single citizen is way beyond proportionality. An online-petition against data retention to the German parliament has already reached more than 12 000 signatures, a second one with different arguments has been submitted recently.
Constitutional Court Decision (only in German, 2.03.2006)
http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060302_2bvr209904.html
Heise News about the decision (only in German, 2.03.2006)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/70267
Tagesschau.de - The implications for data retention (only in German,
2.03.2006)
http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID5290136_REF1_NAV_...
Online Petition to the German Parliamant against Data Retention (only in
German)
http://itc.napier.ac.uk/e-Petition/bundestag/view_petition.asp?Petitio...
(Contribution by Ralf Bendrath, EDRi member Netzwerk Neue Medien - Germany)
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has completed a first inspection of the central unit of EURODAC, but the complete results of the report have not been made public, arguing sensitivity of the information.
EURODAC is a community-wide information technology system for the comparison of the fingerprints of asylum seekers, which was adopted on 11 December 2000 and started operations on 15 January 2003. The system was created to allow the Member States to identify Non-EU citizens who had already filed an asylum application in another Member State.
EURODAC Central unit is responsible for the operation of a computerised central database for comparing fingerprints, an automated fingerprint identification system and a secure communications system for data transmission from and towards the Member States.
The EDPS is the competent authority monitoring the activities of EURODAC to ensure that the rights of the subjects are not violated by data processing or use of the data held by the Central Unit.
The EDPS expressed the general satisfaction with the security level within the Central Unit, stating also that some recommendations had been made to EURODAC. While affirming that EDPS intends to share its findings during a meeting in June in order to enhance collaboration at the national level, the press release also states that: “Because of the sensitivity of some information in the report, it is not publicly available”.
According to Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, this creates “a very bad precedent” that could be extended to VIS (Visa Information System) or other such type of databases. He considers that the report should be at least “"partially accessible" with any "sensitive information" deleted”.
EDPS generally satisfied with security in EURODAC central unit – press
release (9.03.2006)
http://www.edps.eu.int/Press/EDPS-2006-3-EN_EURODAC.pdf
Statewatch News online (03.2006)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/
Eurodac a European Union-wide electronic system for the identification of
asylum-seekers (11.2005)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/fsj/asylum/identification/fsj_a...
With its succession of coups de theatre, the pathetic show of the French EUCD transposition (DADVSI draft law) is going on. After the surprising adoption, on Christmas Eve, of an amendment legalising the exchange of music and video files on the Internet as private copies, compensated by a monthly fee ('global license') collected by ISPs on customers who engage in a certain amount of downloading and uploading, the French National Assembly started a renewed debate on 7 March 2006, based on a deeply modified draft text submitted by the government.
This new version includes two major modifications. The first modification is that the French government has now introduced many exceptions to the author right and related rights, which were already included in the EU Copyright Directive. This is a very welcomed progress since initial versions of the draft transposition were minimal in this respect although the new considered exceptions are still not going as further as the EUCD optional ones.
In particular, the French government prefers to deal with some exceptions through private contractual agreements, instead of guaranteeing them by law. This especially applies to the "pedagogical exception". Members of the scientific community, having found that these agreements do not ensure fair use for education and research, have then started a petition, "considering the shamefully regressive and repressive nature of these new agreements in matters of teaching and research". More than 2000 members of the French scientific community have already signed in favour of this "campaign of civil disobedience", and declared that they "have committed themselves publicly to disobey their minister and the law, and they will continue, no matter what the cost and in spite of any threats or sanctions, to show films, play records, distribute texts... in any way they deem useful and relevant".
The second main proposed modification deals with the penalty regime related to the illegal upload and download of content protected under intellectual property legislation. While still considered as an infraction rather than a lawful private copy exception, downloading such content for non commercial use is subject to the lowest fine in the French penal code (38 euros), instead of the current ambiguous regime, with a threat of high penalty for counterfeit. Uploading under the same conditions could now be subject to the second lowest fine of this code (150 euros) instead of the 3 years of imprisonment and 300 000 euros fine for counterfeit. True counterfeit, as well as upload/download for commercial usage, remains punishable by the high penalty. Penalties related to DRM circumvention, the use of software to this end, as well as the dissemination of software to this end, remain in the intial form of the draft law, while they do not exist in the current legislation, although the government has downsized these penalties compared to its earlier proposal of December 2005 (3750 euros fine, 750 euros fine, and 6 months of imprisonment with 30 000 euros fine, respectively, instead of the penalty for counterfeit).
However, almost 23 hours of preliminary discussions (7-9 March 2006) have mainly been dedicated to procedural issues, disputing the democratic and constitutional validity of the debate. After the Christmas Eve vote, on 6 March, the French government simply announced that it decided to remove the concerned article, replacing it by an amendment and arguing by the (disputed) constitutionality of this process. The day after, most likely after having received 'bad signals' from the Constitutional council (which is not supposed to intervene at this step of the process), it reintroduced this article, together with the new amendment supposed to replace it. Not only is this showing a rather unashamed treatment of the Parliament, but also this attitude confirms the lack of preparation of the French government, which nonetheless pretends to transpose in an emergency procedure a Directive adopted in 2001.
The whole story may probably be explained by the French special (and historical) conception of the 'droit d'auteur' as opposed to the anglo-saxon copyright. As a matter of fact, this is attested by the divisions inside the political majority as well as within the socio-democrat opposition raised by the adoption of the 'global license' on Christmas Eve. Since then, this 'global license' has also been the subject of an incredible lobbying and an apocalyptic debate in the media between its advocates and its opponents. Despite the discourses on the importance of cultural issues used by both sides, we may notice that, unfortunately, culture is indeed considered as a merchandise and, consequently, as a consumer issue, which contradicts the role played by France in the recent adoption of the Unesco Convention on Cultural Diversity in October 2005
In the mean time, core problems with the EU Copyright Directive are being dodged, as noted, inter alia, by the EUCD.info coalition set up since December 2002 by French members of the free-software movement.
The first part of the discussions at the French National Assembly stopped on 9 March. The debate was continued from 14 March, with a vote tentatively scheduled for 21 March 2006. Given the current chaos and the unpredictability of any decision, this report only considers the discussion undertaken until 9 March 2006, included. Future edri-gram issues will report and analyse subsequent developments.
EDRI-gram : French Parliament Is Making The First Step In Legalising P2P
(18.01.06)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.1/frenchp2p
French National Assembly Dossier, with transcription of the debate (only in
French)
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/dossiers/031206.asp
Meryem Marzouki - Implementation process of the EUCD Directive in France
(09.2003)
http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=99
Petition: "Call for Civil Disobedience for Pedagogical Exception in France"
(only in French, 9.03.06)
http://www.politechnicart.net/exception
EUCD.info coalition
http://www.eucd.info
(Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
The European Commission sent a letter to Microsoft on 10 March 2006 stating Microsoft was still not compliant with the EC Treaty rules on abuse of dominant position.
In March 2004, The Commission ordered Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation, which would allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. The Commission issued a decision on 10 November 2005 that warned Microsoft to comply by 15 December 2005 with its obligations to: (i) supply complete and accurate interoperability information; and (ii) make that information available on reasonable terms or face a daily fine of up to €2 million. The Commission then sent a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on 22 December 2005.
The letter sent on 10 March 2006 includes a report from Neil Barrett, Microsoft’s monitoring Trustee that supports the opinions included in the Statement of Objections. According to the Trustee, Microsoft did not make substantial changes to the technical documentation between 29 December 2005 and meetings on 30 and 31 January. According to him the material is still incomplete, inaccurate and unusable.
In the Commission’s opinion Microsoft did not understand the role of its Trustee who is supposed to have an active part in monitoring its compliance.
After having analysed the Trustee’s report as well as Microsoft’s standpoint, TAEUS, the consultants recruited by the Commission, also concluded in their report that the documentation was inadequate and contradictory.
In addition, both reports estimate that Microsoft seems to consider that the users of the documentation are the ones to report incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate information, which Microsoft would then correct.
Microsoft has requested an oral hearing, scheduled for 30 and 31 March 2006. The Commission may then, after consulting the Advisory Committee of Member State Competition Authorities, issue a decision imposing a fine on Microsoft for every day between 15 December 2005 and the date of that decision. The Commission may also take further steps to continue the daily fine until Microsoft complies with the March 2004 Decision.
Competition: Commission publishes information on the role of the Monitoring
Trustee in the Microsoft case (10.03.2006)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/11...
Competition: Commission sends new letter to Microsoft on compliance with
decision (10.03.2006)
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/298&...
You're taking the p*ss, Europe tells Microsoft (11.03.2006)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/11/eu_ms_response/
Microsoft gets record-breaking fine (24.04.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.6/microsoft
In a long awaited ruling, the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen has decided that so-called deep linking is legal in Denmark. The decision is expected to have a major impact on many Danish online-services and search engines.
Controversially, the Maritime and Commercial Court has decided to go against a prior verdict by a lower Danish court. In July 2002, the court ruled that the Danish company Newsbooster was violating copyright law and marketing law by using deep links to articles in Danish online-newspapers. Instead of linking to the main pages of the newspapers, Newsbooster was linking directly to the individual articles, thereby allowing readers to bypass the front pages. The newspapers demanded that the service be shut down - with success.
In the new case, the court has taken the opposite stance. This time, the Danish real estate site bolig.ofir.dk was linking directly to houses for sale at the real estate agent Home. By proving deep links into the internet-database of Home, Ofir again came into conflict with the same law, which closed Newsbooster in 2002. But this time, the court decided differently.
"It should be considered ordinary practice, that search engines make available deep links, which allow the user to access the required information in an effective manner (...) Parties, including providers on the internet, should thus expect, that search services will establish links to those pages which are published ..." reads the court ruling.
In an interview with Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper , Hanne Bender, one of the leading Danish experts in copyright-law, described the new ruling as a milestone. "This decision is incredibly exciting. It challenges everything that has been said in all prior cases," says Hanne Bender, lawyer at the company Bender von Haller Dragsted.
Maritime and Commercial Court ruling ( in Danish, 24.02.2006)
http://www.domstol.dk/media/-300011/files/v010899.pdf
(Contribution by Karim Petersen, Danish WSIS network)
A report from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on the spam issue considers that a more effective approach would be to require the establishment of enforceable codes of conduct by Internet service providers, but at the same time promoting anti-spam legislation in all the countries in the world.
ITU has recently published its 7th edition of Trends in Telecommunication Reform that examines the regulatory challenges and opportunities of enabling ICT development. The report provides regulators with tools they can use to promote effective and innovative development and use of ICTs in a competitive environment. The 7th chapter, publicly available on the ITU website, consists in a report prepared by John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, regarding the present global spam problems and possible solutions.
The report, presented in a draft form also at the Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) held in Tunisia on 14-15 November 2005, just before the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), considers that efforts by governments to counter internet spam by tracking down and prosecuting spammers have had a limited impact. The solutions suggested are basically a combination of approaches including anti-spam laws that should be promoted in all the countries, enforceable codes of conduct, but also education and awareness activities.
The report concludes: "Despite the challenges that are bound to lie ahead, regulators should encourage the adoption of an anti-spam law that is harmonized, as much as possible, with those of other countries. Such an anti-spam law might involve creating an enforceable code of conduct for ISPs, placing the responsibility for mitigating spam closer to where the technical expertise lies."
However, other big players in the international Internet services arena are considering different approaches. AOL has recently announced a controversial plan to charge mass e-mailers a fee to bypass their anti-spam system.
A large coalition, including MoveOn, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Gun Owners of America, announced their opposition to AOL's program, saying it will create an unfair system for delivering e-mail. A public website was created for all the NGOs or persons that support the opposition. The groups say payment does not ensure a message is legitimate and the certified e-mail program won't help non-profits and mailing-list operators whose missives are frequently misidentified as spam.
Trends in Telecommunication Reform 2006: Regulating in the broadband world
(8.03.2006)
http://www.itu.int/publications/publications.aspx?lang=en&parent=D...
Chapter 7: Stemming the International Tide of SPAM (8.03.2006)
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/publications/Chap%207_Trends_2006_E.pdf
Are Spam Blockers Too Strict? (06.03.2006)
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70335-0.html?tw=rss.index
An Open Letter to AOL (28.02.2006)
http://www.dearaol.com/
16 March 2006, Belfast, Northern Ireland
FOSS Means Business
http://foss-means-business.org/
20-21 March 2006, Brussels, Belgium
The Politics and Ideology of Intellectual Property
The TACD conference will provide an opportunity to stand back from specific
legislative proposals and consider the broader intellectual and
philosophical aspects of the debate.
http://www.tacd.org/docs/?id=286
29-30 March 2006, Brussels, Belgium
European Spectrum Management Conference 2006
http://www.epsilonevents.com/pdf/SPECTRUM%20BROCHURE.pdf
12 April 2006, Dublin, Ireland
Royal Irish Academy
"Enabling Open Access to Scientific Data and Information within
the Modern Knowledge Economy; the Case for a Scientific Commons”
http://www.codataweb.org/codata-ria/
15 April 2006, 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
21-23 April 2006, Yale Law School, USA
Access to Knowledge Conference
Yale Information Society Project
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/isp/a2kconfmain.html
27-28 April 2006, Washington, USA
IP Disputes of the Future - TACD
This conference will ask what will be the IP disputes in new fields of
technology, and how advances in biotechnology and information technologies
will change the nature of IP disputes.
http://www.tacd.org/docs/?id=287
30 April - 2 May 2006, Hamburg, Germany
LSPI Conference 2006
The First International Conference on Legal, Security and Privacy Issues in
IT
http://www.kierkegaard.co.uk/
2-5 May 2006, Washington, USA
CFP2006
The Sixteenth Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy
http://www.cfp2006.org
3-6 May 2006, Wiesbaden, Germany
LinuxTag - Europe's biggest fair and congress around free software,
http://www.linuxtag.org
21 June 2006, Luxembourg
Safer Internet Forum 2006
Focus on two topics: "Children's use of new media" and "Blocking
access to
illegal content: child sexual abuse images"
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum_june_2006/index_en.htm
16 - 28 July 2006, Oxford, UK
Annenberg/Oxford Summer Institute: Global Media Policy: Technology and New
Themes in Media Regulation
Application deadline 1 May 2006.
http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/events/ox06/index.php
2-4 August 2006, Bregenz, Austria,
2nd International Workshop on Electronic Voting 2006
Students may apply for funds to attend the workshop until 30 June 2006.
http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/1246056/