archief:edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:26_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:26_01_11 [2017/09/11 21:36] (huidige) – ↷ Pagina verplaatst van edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:26_01_11 naar archief:edri_gram_nieuwsbrief:26_01_11 KapiteinG | ||
---|---|---|---|
Regel 1: | Regel 1: | ||
+ | ====== EDRI-gram Nieuwsbrief - 26 januari 2011 ====== | ||
+ | ===== 1. EDRi responds to data protection consultation ===== | ||
+ | Building on the analysis produced for the European Commission' | ||
+ | One of EDRi's primary concerns with regard to the existing legal framework is the lack of predictability - due to vast differences in the way basic parts of the Directive are understood by Member States' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Another core problem to address is the plummeting costs of data processing which causes more and more data to be collected and used. Such processing will lead to ever-greater risks being taken with personal data unless legal provisions ensure that the risk-reward balance for data processors is adapted appropriately. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Processing of personal data by states comes in for particular criticism in EDRi's submission. The actions of Member States must be consistent with what they expect from private companies, and there are many examples of this not being the case. There are numerous examples of electronic patient records, e-government systems and public transport payment systems which do not respect " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Regarding data processing by companies, EDRi welcomes many of the policies described in the Commission Communication, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Concerning new technologies, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In order to improve implementation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Both the change of legal environment as a result of the Lisbon Treaty and the increasing trend for data collected by private companies to be used for policing purposes means that it is essential to include data collected for policing purposes in the Directive. A strong data protection framework is the minimum price that should be paid for the levels of police and security cooperation that are currently demanded and enacted within the EU and between the EU and third states. | ||
+ | |||
+ | EDRi believes that a Regulation would be a better instrument to ensure clarification and simplification of rules for international data transfers. EDRi believes that the current "safe harbour" | ||
+ | |||
+ | Finally, EDRi drew attention to a separate consultation that overlaps with the Commission' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 2. EC's leak describes blocking as " | ||
+ | A leaked draft of the European Commission' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Nonetheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Meanwhile, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament is getting ready for its vote on blocking next week. 342 amendments have been tabled to the Child Exploitation Directive as a whole, with 45 addressing the issue of Internet blocking. While there is a large consensus that blocking should not be mandatory on Member States, there is a wide divergence of opinion on whether blocking should be promoted or not by the Directive and whether " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Among MEPs that have been diligently working on the dossier in the 22 months since the original proposal was made, there is widespread agreement that neither blocking nor non-legislative measures should not be promoted. However, numerous amendments have been tabled by MEPs that have never spoken in a single debate on the issue. When the vote happens, therefore, all will hang on the efforts by activists to contact MEPs and persuade them that blocking is dangerous and that extra-judicial actions by Internet access providers to restrict access to content would be wrong and contrary to the most basic principles of fundamental rights. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 3. EU institutions want clarifications form Hungary on its media legislation ===== | ||
+ | The Hungarian EU Presidency was met on 19 January 2011 with opposition and criticism due to the controversial media legislation Hungary has recently introduced. Some MEPs displayed white banners that read " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime-Minister started his speech by stating that the Hungarian government was willing to change the legislation if the European Commission finds it to be at fault, as the law is presently under its legal review to establish whether it contravenes the EU law. Orban added that Hungary would follow the EC opinion provided it was scrupulously objective, and insisted that Hungary should be treated like any other EU member state. Also, that a separation should be made between Hungary' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Several MEPs expressed the opinion that the legislation ought to be scrapped entirely. The new law establishes a Media Council (MC) to ensure " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Miklos Haraszti, former OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, explained that there are actually five interconnected legislative acts introduced in Hungary since June 2010 that were passed in a rush, at the end of the year, without any consultation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the corroborated legislation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The new Hungarian legislation stipulates high penalties, from 90 000 to 722000 Euro for infringements such as the provision of content that may potentially hurt any community. In order to verify the violations, MC may access any data, including legally protected information.. Refusal to offer the required data may bring a fine of up to180 000 Euro to any media provider.. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The legislation thus puts the entire media under the power of a single governmental authority and, according to Judit Bayer, associate professor of media law at King Sigismund College in Budapest, the law is " | ||
+ | |||
+ | On 21 January 2011, the European Commission sent a letter to the Hungarian government, giving them two weeks to answer the concerns related to this law. In case of an inadequate answer, Hungary may face legal action. | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The commission services have serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Hungarian legislation with Union law," wrote Vice-President of the Commission in charge of the Digital Agenda, , Neelie Kroes. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The letter also refers to the provisions of the law that allow Hungary to fine broadcasters based outside the country for what is deemed hate speech, as well as the mandatory registration of all media, including websites, which appear to be incompatible with EU rules. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 4. European Commission concerned over illegal eavesdropping in Bulgaria ===== | ||
+ | Based on a request for access to public information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is possible due to a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to Dvevnik, based on this procedure, 2 767 such cases of illegal eavesdropping have already taken place in seven months. The daily also revealed that, according to economists, Bulgaria spends 50 times more than the UK on eavesdropping. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While the Bulgarian press reveals a significant increase of eavesdropping under the government of Boyko Borissov, the Bulgarian Prime-Minister justifies the government eavesdropping as an important instrument in fighting organised crime. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The European Commission has recently requested information from the Bulgarian authorities related to the legality of the eavesdropping activities, following leaks into Galeria tabloid concerning taped phone conversations in which apparently Boyko Borissov spoke of the need to " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The ALDE group submitted on 21 January 2011 a question to the Commission asking clarifications over the application of the Bulgarian wiretap law, which infringes the Bulgarian Constitution, | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The current Bulgarian scandal over the escalating use of Special Intelligence Means is a stain on the image of Bulgaria in the same way as the Hungarian media law this week taints the international image of that country. The data collected from the special services in Bulgaria is leaking widely and the only independent mechanism for control over the special services has been abolished. There is a widespread paranoia spreading amongst Bulgarian society. The European Commission should step in and uphold the rights of Bulgarian citizens under EU law before this situation gets out of hand," said ALDE MEP Stanimir Ilchev. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The European Commission is expected to present a report in February on progress made by Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism monitoring procedure. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 5. Romanian NGOs demand stopping data retention in Europe ===== | ||
+ | In an open letter sent to the European institutions, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The letter asks the European Commission to take advantage of the evaluation process of the Data Retention Directive in order to correct the mistakes of the past and to nullify the Directive, as it has been shown there are difficulties in obtaining the relevant data regarding the efficiency of such a system. The Commission has also received clear examples of abuses and adverse effects on privacy. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The signatories underline that a Romanian implementation of the EU Directive on data retention is impossible, after the 2009 decision of the Constitutional Court that considered that the fundamental scope of the law (and thus of the Directive) - legal obligation to continuously and indiscriminately store telecommunication data- is unconstitutional. | ||
+ | |||
+ | They are also asking the competent European institutions to take note of the irreconcilable conflict between the telecommunication data retention and the human right to privacy and to act accordingly to respect the principles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The text is meant to remind, support and respect the decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court and not to put an EU Member State in a position that will breach its constitutional texts: "The decision stipulates that keeping all traffic data for all Romanian citizens is a measure that breaches human rights, as foreseen by the Romanian Constitution. Thus 'the legal obligation with a continuous character, generally applicable, of data retention (...) harms in an unacceptable way the exercise of the right to privacy or the freedom of expression.'" | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 6. Spain: Right to be forgotten and Google ===== | ||
+ | The Spanish data protection authority (AEPD) has recently been focusing on a privacy-related campaign against major Internet intermediaries, | ||
+ | |||
+ | On 17 January 2010, AEPD accused Google of invading personal privacy of users, arguing the company was in breach of the "right to be forgotten", | ||
+ | |||
+ | Google argues that deleting results "would be a form of censorship", | ||
+ | |||
+ | "We are disappointed by the actions of the Spanish privacy regulator. Spanish and European law rightly hold the publisher of the material responsible for its content. Requiring intermediaries like search engines to censor material published by others would have a profound, chilling effect on free expression without protecting people' | ||
+ | |||
+ | But even if Google loses the case, the articles blocked by the search engine will still be available on the websites of the newspapers and journals that published the respective articles. However, Google will have to delete information about the concerned individuals from its Spanish site and respond to another 88 cases also brought to the Spanish regulator. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The case is closely followed by the European Union because its outcomes may have implications outside Spain, having in view that EU has already announced looking at how the application of the right to be forgotten is implemented in the online world. " | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 7. Sarkozy wants a " | ||
+ | With France at the Presidency of the G20 group in 2011, Nicolas Sarkozy has recently announced the intention to convene a G20 meeting to discuss Internet and copyright issues, before the full G20 summit of heads of state and government in Cannes in November. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The French President has had the same discourse for some time now, having pushed the idea of a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The subject of a " | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the French government' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A pioneer who obstinately continues its efforts to promote its repressive three-strikes system with every occasion. In October 2010, an international conference on online freedom of expression was supposed to be organised by French minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A letter sent by Nicolas Sarkozy to Houchner shows that Sarkozy was trying to take the opportunity of the conference to promote Hadopi law establishing the three-strikes system. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In Sarkozy' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the meantime, Hadopi presented on 23 January 2011, on the occasion of MIDEM 2011 (Marché International du Disque et de l' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The study revealed that half of the French Internet users engage in alleged illegal downloads. A rather unpleasant finding for Hadopi is that 29 % of the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The study has also revealed that the persons who illegally download cultural goods are also the ones that spend more on culture than others who do not. The main obstacle to legal consumption of digital cultural goods is the price for 37% of users, while for 21% of them the reason is a lack of offer diversity, and only 13% state they are more used to " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The findings of the report are not quite in favour of Hadopi and only prove the inefficiency of the system. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 8. ENDitorial: EDRi publishes study on self-regulation and censorship ===== | ||
+ | European Digital Rights has published a study on the scale of measures being undertaken to outsource policing activities to private companies in the Internet environment and its significance for fundamental rights, transparency and openness on the Internet. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Internet intermediaries around the world are taking on more important roles in their states' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The study found that the term " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Should Internet intermediaries become privatised enforcement systems? The measures recently taken by Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and EveryDNS against WikiLeaks are a case in point. Even without WikiLeaks being charged with any particular crime, private companies have acted unilaterally against it. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The devolved enforcement initiatives documented in the report aim to persuade industry to engage in a vigilante system of monitoring and sanctioning; | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a series of ongoing " | ||
+ | * a 2010 European Commission funding proposal incentivising companies to engage in " | ||
+ | * discussions launched by the Council of Europe' | ||
+ | * 2010 OECD discussions, | ||
+ | * the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that contains provisions that would encourage or coerce ISPs into policing their networks and enforcing extra-judicial sanctions, where they deem it to be appropriate; | ||
+ | * an OSCE consultation in 2010, the aim of which was to explore ways to enable ISPs to "' | ||
+ | * EU/India and EU/Korea bilateral free trade agreements that would change the EU acquis on intermediary liability. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The encouragement of extra-legal measures to limit access to information, | ||
+ | |||
+ | While these appear to be regressive steps away from freedom, the study found, for instance, that the European Commission appears far from perturbed by the dangers for fundamental rights of this approach and appears keen to export the approach. This process is gradually strangling the openness that is at the core of the Internet. This openness has enhanced democracy, has shaken dictatorships and has boosted economies worldwide. This openness is what we will lose through privatised policing of the Internet by private companies - what will we gain? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 9. Recommended Action ===== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 10. Recommended Reading ===== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== 11. Agenda ===== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// |
archief/edri_gram_nieuwsbrief/26_01_11.txt · Laatst gewijzigd: 2017/09/11 21:36 door KapiteinG