"Do what you must do and let come what may. Due to circumstances like the Putin presidency you can hope and you can make plans, more or less realistic, and work to get closer to your aim and to help people," that's the more or less stoic attitude that characterises Sergei Smirnov from the Russian Human Rights Network.

Smirnov (1973), with a degree in geophysics, lives in Moscow. He has been the co-ordinator of the Human Rights Network group since its foundation in 1997. He started his NGO career in 1992 as interpreter at the Moscow Research Centre for Human Rights. In 1993 he initiated the 'Information Human Rights Network' program to build a sustainable computerised network of human rights groups all over Russia. He distributed computer equipment and maintained Internet connections to over 40 Russian human rights groups from different regions of the country and conducted a number of technical workshops. More over, he edited the "Human Rights in Russia" bulletin from 1994 to 1997. In 1996, together with colleagues from Ryazan, he started the Human Rights Online website which by now is the largest source of information on human rights in Russia. Since 1998 he works on cyber-rights issues, including online privacy.

On 13 May 2005 the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers adopted a declaration on human rights and Internet that was prepared by a special committee of academic experts and government representatives. According to the press release, "the declaration is the first international attempt to draw up a framework on the issue and breaks ground by up-dating the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights for the cyber-age."

Indeed the declaration contains a very reassuring confirmation of the fact that "all rights enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) remain fully valid in the Information Age and should continue to be protected regardless of new technological developments" and a firm statement that "Both the content and traffic data of electronic communications fall under the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR and should not be submitted to restrictions other than those provided for in that provision."

From 17 to 19 May UNESCO organised a large conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, 'Between two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society'. The 450 participants from all over the world were invited to the luxurious Konstantinovsky Palace.

In her opening speech Françoise Rivière, the Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, described the context of St. Petersburg conference and the special involvement of UNESCO Paris head quarters with a session on cultural diversity.

Opening speech by Françoise Rivière

This session was the 4th of a series of thematic meetings held in 2005 in the Information for All programme. In February Paris head quarters hosted a conference on freedom of expression (see EDRI-gram 3.3), early in May the capital of Mali (Bamako) hosted a conference on multi linguism in cyberspace and on 10 May Paris head quarters debated about the use of ICT for capacity building. The Bamako conference produced as main result a clear recognition that the debate about the level of IT development must be changed and in stead of just counting internet usage equal attention should be given to lesser used languages, education and literacy programs. The third meeting in Paris was dedicated to effective use of new methods for learning, focussing on groups such as refugees, the visually impaired, rural areas and the urban poor.

A recent bill proposing a comprehensive structural reform of the Danish municipal system has initiated a heated debate about the protection of personal data, the rule of law and citizens access to information. "How can digital administration empower marginalised groups of the Danish society?", "How to ensure that the administration will be more transparent for the citizen and not the other way around?", and "How can democratic control ensure coherence between political goals and technology choices?". These were some of the questions debated on 27 April 2005 when a working group established by the Danish Board of Technology had invited a number of public and private decision makers to discuss consequences and perspectives of the digital administration. In the debate the Danish Institute for Human Rights stressed that the current proposals represent a regress of citizens' rights rather than an

The international federation of journalists (IFJ) and the UK civil liberties group Statewatch have launched a new report on 3 May 2005, World Press Freedom Day. The report examines how democratic states sacrifice civil liberties and free expression in the name of security and concludes: "The war on terrorism amounts to a devastating challenge to the global culture of human rights and civil liberties established almost 60 years ago."

According to the press release the report also concludes:

-Media and independent journalism suffer in a 'pervasive atmosphere of paranoia' which is leading to dangerous levels of self-censorship
-Dissent inside and outside media is being restricted
-Fundamental rights to a fair trial are routinely violated
-Governments are covertly creating massive databanks for surveillance of their citizens

The public and academic libraries in the Netherlands have united in strong protest against a proposed new law that will give the police extraordinary new access powers to data about readers. The law is now with the Senate and the committee on legal affairs is waiting for answers from the minister after a first critical round of questions. The law addresses all holders of data, from car rent companies to video stores and from private people with databases to any kind of company with data about their customers. Parts of the law have already entered into force, in special legislation for banks and for telephony and Internet providers.

Generally, the law will make it much easier for law enforcement to get access to data, by lowering legal barriers and safeguards. The proposal distinguishes between three kinds of data: identifying data, other data and sensitive data. Identifying data are much more than just name and address. This category includes postal address, date of birth, gender and all kinds of administrative identifiers such as customer number, insurance policy number, bank account or membership numbers. Any police officer can demand 'series' of these identifying data, without any suspicion, as pro-active investigation. These demands can be even be made verbally, on the phone.

On 20 April 2005 the civil liberties group Statewatch, together with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two other NGOs launched the Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS), calling on all national governments and intergovernmental organisations to turn away from antiterrorism efforts that are oriented around mass surveillance.

The campaign started with an in-depth report on 'The emergence of a global infrastructure for registration and surveillance'. "Driven largely by the United States, a growing web of anti-terrorism and security measures are being adopted by nations around the world. This new 'security' paradigm is being used to roll back freedom and increase police powers in order to exercise increasing control over individuals and populations." The report describes 10 signposts that clearly mark the general erosion of human rights. To some extent, all of the signposts have already been realised. To another extent, the report reads like a manual for an awesome uncle of Big Brother.

The rapporteur for the European Parliament on telecommunication data retention, Alexander Alvaro, has organised on 3 May a round table discussion with the title 'How does the internet work and how does data retention effect industry and society'. A broad cross section of civil society and industry representatives criticised the current Council framework proposal on data retention for its content and procedure. The meeting was held under the flag of the alliance of liberals and democrats (ALDE) in the European Parliament. Several MEPs attended the meeting, including Mastenbroek, Cederschiöld and Duquesne.

"We need a genuine debate, one which has been sorely missing", said Alexander Alvaro. "The current proposal lacks a proper legal base, is disproportionate and ineffective. It needs a thorough rethink", he added. Almost all speakers attacked the European Council's proposal regarding proportionality, necessity and costs. Both industry and civil society organisations agreed on the grave impact that data retention will have on civil liberties, internal market and consumer trust.