archief:edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:12_01_11
no way to compare when less than two revisions
Verschillen
Dit geeft de verschillen weer tussen de geselecteerde revisie en de huidige revisie van de pagina.
— | archief:edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:12_01_11 [2017/09/11 21:36] (huidige) – ↷ Pagina verplaatst van edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:12_01_11 naar archief:edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:12_01_11 KapiteinG | ||
---|---|---|---|
Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
+ | ====== EDRI-gram Nieuwsbrief - 12 januari 2011 ====== | ||
+ | ===== 1. Web blocking discussions in European Parliament reach critical stage ===== | ||
+ | The European Parliament is currently at a crucial stage in the discussions on the European Commission' | ||
+ | Despite the fact that the original proposal was made by the Commission in March 2009, the level of debate has not developed to any great extent after almost two years of discussion. The fact that the Commission failed to provide any evidence from countries that already block websites has not had any positive impact whatsoever. The fact that blocking is increasingly irrelevant due to the use of P2P and hacked servers instead of static " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nonetheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | With regard to extra-judicial blocking, the Commission supports this approach, despite having stated in an impact assessment in 2007 that "the adoption of blocking measures necessarily implies a restriction of human rights, in particular the freedom of expression and therefore, it can only be imposed by law". | ||
+ | |||
+ | The blocking proposal has even led the European Commission to enter the public affairs market. On 12 January, they cooperated with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP - affiliated to the UK police Serious Organised Crime Agency) to transport parliamentarians to London for a day of pro-blocking lobbying. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 2. EU Commissioner criticises US for the data protection negotiations ===== | ||
+ | Following a meeting she had in December 2010 with US attorney general Eric Holder and Interior Minister Janet Napolitano, the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding expressed her concern on what she believed to be a lack of interest of the US officials regarding the data protection agreement to be negotiated between EU and US. | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The meeting turned out to be somewhat disappointing on data protection. From the outset, we have noted an apparent lack of interest on the US side to talk seriously about data protection," | ||
+ | The US administration disagreed with Ms. Reding and William Kennard, the United States ambassador to the European Union, stated that in his opinion things had moved ahead and that, in order to decide on the negotiator, the US administration needed to better understand what EU negotiators wanted to include in the agreement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The EU-US data-sharing agreement (so-called SWIFT deal) that gives US authorities access to bank transfer information for anti-terrorism purposes was rejected by EU legislature in February 2010 pending better data protection conditions. An agreement became operational in August 2010 when further protections were added to the SWIFT deal, such as the presence of an EU supervisor in Washington to check that no abuse occurs. | ||
+ | In the meantime, US authorities continue talks for the existing EU-US PNR (Passenger Name Record) exchange agreement which obliges airlines to send details on passengers flying to USA that are to be cross-checked with the US terrorist watch list. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The scope of the data use is wider than the European Parliament is comfortable with. EP is asking for a high level of protection of the transferred personal data (such as PNR data and financial information) and wants a charter of rights outlining the fundamental principles that should stand at the basis of future data-sharing, | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to leaked information, | ||
+ | The EU wants citizens to get the right to rectify and delete data and to go to court in case of data misuse and asks for a more proportionate use of the data by the authorities. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Reding wants to obtain limitations of retained data , a strict ban on the transfer of data to other countries and asks for an independent data protection supervisor to be appointed by the US for the supervision of the authorities' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 3. IPR Enforcement Plan: Blocking, filtering and monitoring via injunction ===== | ||
+ | Just before Christmas, the European Commission published its report on the application of the IPR Enforcement Directive. | ||
+ | The text, while written in fairly neutral terms, does subtly show the Commission' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **A.General obligation to monitor**\\ | ||
+ | The text explains that in order to have injunctions work " | ||
+ | |||
+ | One example of how this would work in practice can be found in the Belgian Scarlet/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Commissioner Malmström, who said in May 2010 that the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **B. Data protection**\\ | ||
+ | The Communication also seeks to undermine the fundamental right to privacy by implying that a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The following text is from page 7 of the report: " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Communication is part of a consultation and replies should be received by 31 March 2011. All citizens who care about fundamental rights should respond to the Communication. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 4. New media law in Hungary allows Internet censorship ===== | ||
+ | On 1 January 2011, a new Hungarian media law entered into force, giving the government the power to control the Internet, endangering the freedom of speech and journalism in general. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As Hungary took over the EU Presidency on 6 January 2011, in a context where there are strong attempts from various EU governments to censor the Internet, the Hungarian authorities started the year with a new law giving excessive powers and control to the government over the public media including Internet content. | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the newly introduced law, all media must be registered and the licences may be suspended or withdrawn for breaches. The text does not distinguish between different types of media - traditional broadcasters as well as online platforms have to obey the same standards - and extends the protection against content, ranging from hate speech to unintentional insult and incitement to hatred. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The law introduces the creation of a strong censorship authority which has the power to unilaterally judge content material on the basis of broad and unclearly defined criteria such as the protection of public order or the appropriate information in relation to public affairs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Perceived breaching of the law may bring forth fines of thousands of Euro which will likely lead to media self-censorship, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The law is largely criticised and opposed by civil liberties organisations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | All the Hungarian parliamentary opposition parties said that they would submit an appeal to the country' | ||
+ | A joint analysis of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Eötvös Károly Institute and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, assessing the method and pace of the legislative work of the newly elected Hungarian Parliament, concluded the law violated the principle of the rule of law. | ||
+ | A group of Internet citizens, blackout4hungary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Following a meeting with the EU college of Commissioners on the EU priorities for the next 6 years, the Hungarian Government seems to have a softer attitude and Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister admitted that his government needed to ensure that " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated for the press that he had " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 5. Polish Supreme Court: All electronic press must be registered ===== | ||
+ | On 15 December 2010, in a cassation proceeding, the Polish Supreme Court decided that all electronic press in Poland must be registered. This decision goes along the line traced by its 2007 decision of the same substance, followed by a corresponding press law amendment proposal by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, including obligatory registration of all " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Recently, it seemed that things were improving - the 2010 Ministry of Culture' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Polish Press Law Act from 26 January 1984 defines " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Act defines " | ||
+ | It ought to be emphasized that the sentence of the 15 December 2010 decision sets the administrator of the subject web-page (gazetabytowska.pl) free. The Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Slupsk district court that did find the plaintiff guilty of infringing Press Law Article 45, that is publishing (on-line) a journal or a periodical without registration, | ||
+ | |||
+ | It ought to be emphasized that as cited above, Article 7 does not include an obligation to register press as such - this obligation is foreseen in Article 20 and concerns only journals and periodicals, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This decision goes along the line of the 2007 " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The core problem with the interpretation presented by the Supreme Court lies in the wide responsibility of the web-publisher that in this case is the page-administrator, | ||
+ | What is more, such an obligation, and - following the suggestion of the Supreme Court - the punishment of the ones who do not fulfil it should be considered a breach of one of the basic rules of criminal law: nullum crimen sine lege certa et stricta (this argument was also raised by the defendant accused in the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | One must not forget that in the Polish legal system, the Supreme Court Decision is binding solely in the particular case. Nonetheless the role that the legal interpretations made by the highest legal instance plays in the further application of legal norms must not be under appreciated. | ||
+ | The decision will not be published, as according to Polish procedural regulations this kind of decision (a provisional ruling " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 6. French law Loppsi 2 adopted by the General Assembly ===== | ||
+ | The so-called Loppsi 2 law (loi d' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The law which, among several measures covers a mix of security domains, asks ISPs to block Internet sites deemed to have child pornographic content, now includes a version that will no longer require a previous judicial approval, which is actually against the French Constitution, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The law also gives the police the power to install remote spyware on PCs, although in this case, under judicial control. Yet, these types of operations seems to have already been undertaken by DRCI (The Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur - Central Directorate of Interior Intelligence) even before the implementation of the law. The approved text also allows for generalised video surveillance in public places. A very worrying and contested measure is that of giving authorities the power to limit the use of public data only to people whose " | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the draft law waits to enter into its second reading in the Senate, a group of several French liberty groups, union federations, | ||
+ | "This law prepares a control society based on tension and stigmatisations. It materialises the phantasm of the interior enemy and assimilates any contesting act to an attack to the State. It will weaken the prevention and judicial guarantees," | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 7. RapidShare wins another alleged copyright infringement case ===== | ||
+ | RapidShare, the Swiss based file-hosting service, won the appeal against the computer game distributor Atari Europe. In March 2010, Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled that the company had not taken sufficient measures to hinder the distribution of the computer game "Alone in the Dark" via its platform. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has now dismissed Atari' | ||
+ | The Court also ruled against Atari' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The ruling demonstrates once again that RapidShare is operating a fully legal range and has taken measures against the misuse of its service which go beyond the level that is legally required. We are confident that copyright holders will gradually come to accept this conclusion," | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is the second decision of the kind taken by the German court in favour of RapidShare. In July 2010 The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled against Capelight Pictures giving a similar decision. Also, in May 2009, a US court ruled that RapidShare was not guilty of copyright infringement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 8. ENDitorial: EDRi's data retention workshop at CCC ===== | ||
+ | Two EDRi members, Bits of Freedom and Panoptykon Foundation, together with one observer Patrick Breyer from AK Vorrat, gave a talk on data retention and hosted a workshop for activists during the Chaos Communication Congress (CCC) which is Europe' | ||
+ | |||
+ | What we prepared for this occasion was an hour-long lecture presented along with a dynamic slide show. The presentation was composed of five parts: | ||
+ | * (i) explanation of how data retention came about and what problems we have with it; | ||
+ | * (ii) overview of key jurisprudence undermining the principle of blanket data retention; | ||
+ | * (iii) outcomes of the evaluation process and the state of affairs in the European Commission; | ||
+ | * (iv) cases of abuse from various Member States; and | ||
+ | * (v) strategies for further action against data retention. | ||
+ | Our primary goal was to show that the year 2011 will be crucial in the fight against blanket data retention and therefore we need to create a broad activist movement and gain more social support to make our voice heard. We explained how civil society could exert an influence on the decision makers in Brussels and MEPs and what time frames we faced. We stressed the need for an EU-wide shadow report to be drafted by March and published right before the official report by DG Home. Another point was that we needed to gather data on the use of retention data from various EU countries, translate it into clear and convincing messages for the media and prepare a consistent campaigning strategy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | These needs and initial concepts were elaborated during an informal discussion at our workshop, which was announced in the plenary. CCC gave us this opportunity to organise our own event on the second day meant as a discussion space and informal gathering for activists interested in the data retention campaign. We welcomed about 50 persons who discussed with us practical aspects of the campaign for nearly two hours. The energy was high and we felt that another AK Vorrat-type of mobilisation is possible. As a result of this meeting we decided to set up provisional discussion tools - a wiki and a mailing list - where the conversation may continues. Everybody is welcome to join. You can also do it by [[info@bof.nl|e-mailing]]. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 9. Recommended Reading ===== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 10. Agenda ===== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// |
archief/edri_gram_nieuwsbrief/12_01_11.txt · Laatst gewijzigd: 2017/09/11 21:36 door KapiteinG