July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[liberationtech] Silent Circle Going Open Source
by Nadim Kobeissi 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

A huge thanks to Silent Circle for doing the right thing! https://github.com/SilentCircle NK -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[drone-list] "The DIY Kid-tracking drone"
by Gregory Foster 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

IEEE Spectrum (Dec 1) - "The DIY Kid-tracking drone" by Paul Wallich: http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/the-diy-kidtracking-drone A good technical summary of contemporary off-the-shelf quadcopter construction. And a not-so-subtle commentary on the degree to which convenience can trump privacy. gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster(a)entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/ _______________________________________________ drone-list mailing list drone-list(a)lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/drone-list If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

ENVELOPE STUFFING JOB
by Sholanda Maria Coleman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

is there anyway I can talk to you or one of your representatives about this wonderful opportunity? I'm very anxious to get started. sholanda_(a)excite.com _______________________________________________________ Send a cool gift with your E-Card http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/ --8269123.1003518931928.JavaMail.imail.swirly--

1 0

[Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5820618.html Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived August 5, 2005 12:13 PM PDT Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval. The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless "trash dive" into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered pseudoephedrine boxes -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison. Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the trash was, well, meant to be thrown away. What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his concurring opinion in full: -Declan -------------- Justice James C. Nelson concurs. I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts. I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening. In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa. My garbage can contains my DNA. As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise. Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding. Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; "discount" cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; "cookies" and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted in the family dog and soon to be integrated into my groceries, my credit cards, my cash and my new underwear. I know that the notes from the visit to my doctor's office may be transcribed in some overseas country under an out-sourcing contract by a person who couldn't care less about my privacy. I know that there are all sorts of businesses that have records of what medications I take and why. I know that information taken from my blood sample may wind up in databases and be put to uses that the boilerplate on the sheaf of papers I sign to get medical treatment doesn't even begin to disclose. I know that my insurance companies and employer know more about me than does my mother. I know that many aspects of my life are available on the Internet. Even a black box in my car--or event data recorder as they are called--is ready and willing to spill the beans on my driving habits, if I have an event--and I really trusted that car, too. And, I also know that my most unwelcome and paternalistic relative, Uncle Sam, is with me from womb to tomb. Fueled by the paranoia of "ists" and "isms," Sam has the capability of spying on everything and everybody--and no doubt is. But, as Sam says: "It's for my own good." In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data. I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can. I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash. As our Opinion states, search and seizure jurisprudence is centered around privacy expectations and reasonableness considerations. That is true even under the extended protections afforded by Montana's Constitution, Article II, Sections 10. and 11. We have ruled within those parameters. And, as is often the case, we have had to draw a fine line in a gray area. Justice Cotter and those who have signed the Opinion worked hard at defining that line; and I am satisfied we've drawn it correctly on the facts of this case and under the conventional law of abandonment. That said, if this Opinion is used to justify a sweep of the trash cans of a neighborhood or community; or if a trash dive for Sudafed boxes and matchbooks results in DNA or fingerprints being added to a forensic database or results in personal or business records, credit card receipts, personal correspondence or other property being archived for some future use unrelated to the case at hand, then, absent a search warrant, I may well reconsider my legal position and approach to these sorts of cases--even if I have to think outside the garbage can to get there. I concur. /S/ JAMES C. NELSON _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

Re: [IP] FBI plans new Net-tapping push
by Hugh D. Hyatt 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

For IP, if you wish.... David Farber is alleged to have written, on or about 08-Jul-06 08:00: >Begin forwarded message: >From: Richard Forno <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> >Date: July 8, 2006 2:22:38 AM EDT >To: Blaster <rforno(a)infowarrior.org> >Cc: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> >Subject: FBI plans new Net-tapping push >FBI plans new Net-tapping push >By Declan McCullagh >http://news.com.com/FBI+plans+new+Net-tapping+push/ >2100-1028_3-6091942.html [snip] >b" Eliminate the current legal requirement saying the Justice >Department must publish a public "notice of the actual number of >communications >interceptions" every year. That notice currently also must disclose >the >"maximum capacity" required to accommodate all of the legally >authorized >taps that government agencies will "conduct and use simultaneously." This would eliminate the public's ability to learn interesting and important facts like those published here (also by Mr McCullagh): http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/4377-1.html. For example, "According to government statistics, in 1998 police intercepted 2,313,210 conversations but the taps -- 71% were for drug-related crimes -- resulted in only 911 convictions." Was that a reasonable trade-off between security and freedom? And how else can we, the people, make such judgments without having facts like these? -- Hugh D. Hyatt Bryn Athyn, PA The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt. -- John Philpot Curran ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen(a)leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[IP] more on FBI plans new Net-tapping push
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

[Geowanking] Google Earth as the 'view from nowhere': CFP for the Association of American Geographers 2007 conference
by martin dodge 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Hello, I hope this might be of interest to some people on the list. cheers martin ----- Call for papers - 2007 Association of American Geographers Annual Conference. 17-21 April 2007, San Francisco, California, USA. http://www.aag.org/annualmeetings/SF2007/ Google Earth as the 'view from nowhere': the spatial politics of high-resolution satellite imagery Session organisers: Chris Perkins and Martin Dodge Geography, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester Context: Google Earth, and various internet portals, offer ubiquitous high-resolution satellite imagery at unprecedented detail to a global audience through simple interfaces. The capabilities and technical beauty of Google Earth, in particular, has garnered wide spread praise and a rapidly growing fan-base. Given this impact, now is an apposite time for considered reflection on exactly what can been seen with satellite imagery and thinking through the spatial politics of newly accessible images of the world. Pictures taken from satellites orbiting high above the Earth offer people a seductively objective view of the world below, termed by Thomas Nagel the 'view from nowhere'. This mirror-like viewpoint over territory, has until recently, been for the most part the preserve of military forces and states have jealously guarded their visual power in the interest of national security. But recent technological and social change has led to increasing spatial and temporal data resolution becoming much more widely available, in large part because the 'mirror' is being commercialised, and significantly access through the internet portals seems to be offering a means of challenging the power of the formerly elite discourse. We invite theoretically informed analysis that questions the ontological surety of satellite imagery. Suggested themes: # Explore the tensions between transparency and secrecy that percolate debates about access to high-resolution satellite imagery. # Reflect on the potential for progressive use of imagery by non-state actors to challenge established power relations. # Examine the politics of socio-technical infrastructures and corporate practices that underpin image dissemination, censorship and manipulation. # Critique the naturalizing power of the interfaces to systems like Google Earth, particularly in relation to the military origins of these systems. # Question the uneven spatial provision of imagery and the commercial logics of points of interest databases. # Analyse growing mass media use of high-resolution satellite imagery. # Evaluate alternative visualities from artists who employ the 'view from nowhere' to problematize relations between subject and object. # Interrogate notions of satellite ethics, particularly relating to individual privacy and community rights. # Situate the potential of progressive pedagogy employing high-resolution satellite imagery. # Assess the cultural meanings attached the imagery and the nature of the new community of practices emerging (such as 'black helicopter' spotters). ---- Proposed papers in the form of a title and short abstract (250 words maximum) should be submitted to Martin Dodge (m.dodge(a)manchester.ac.uk) by 15th September 2006. Further details on the paper requirements and registration for the AAG meeting are at http://www.aag.org/annualmeetings/SF2007/call4papers.cfm ---- Martin Dodge Geography, School of Environment and Development, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Distributed by CARTO-SoC, the Society of Cartographers Mailing List. For more details about this List and the Society, visit our web site: http://www.soc.org.uk Join the Society on-line now: http://www.soc.org.uk/member.html _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list Geowanking(a)lists.burri.to http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 8.4, 24 February 2010
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRi-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 8.5, 10 March 2010 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. German Federal Constitutional Court rejects data retention law 2. EDRi sends open letter to EU Commissioners to oppose Internet blocking 3. ECJ: The Data Protection Authorities need to be completely independent 4. UK Government to decide on the Internet disconnections and web blocking 5. PNR agreements with US and Australia on the European Parliament's Agenda 6. French Constitutional Court: No to police access to private space CCTV 7. Article 29: Reduce the storing period of Google Street View's images 8. Survey on Chip implants in Germany 9. Declaration on Safer Internet proposed in the Macedonian Parliament 10. ENDitorial: ACTA, the Euro Parliament resolution and political clarity 11. Recommended Action 12. Recommended Reading 13. Agenda 14. About ============================================================ 1. German Federal Constitutional Court rejects data retention law ============================================================ The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected on 2 March 2010 the legislation requiring electronic communications traffic data retention for a period of 6 months. The legislation on data retention, implementing the similar EU Directive, was passed by the Bundestag on 9 November 2007 and entered into force on 1 January 2008. On 31 December 2007, a constitutional complaint was brought to the Federal Constitutional Court by 35 000 citizens (the largest number of plaintiffs ever involved in a case) at the initiative of the German privacy group AK Vorrat (Working group on data retention), one the plaintiffs being the present Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. The court judges considered that the data storage was not secure enough, that it was not clear what it would be used for and that it could "cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one's basic rights in many areas," as stated the president of the court, Hans-J|rgen Papier. They considered that "such retention represents an especially grave intrusion" into citizens' privacy. The court did not annul the legislation entirely but suspended it, asking for the immediate deletion of the data already collected and for the massive modification of the law in order to provide stricter conditions for to the use and storage of the data. According to the decision, the data should be encoded and there should be "transparent control" of the information usage. The ruling also stated that the data usage control process should involve the government's Commissioner for data protection and freedom of information and that the secret use of data should be possible only in individual cases and ordered by the court. Following the court's ruling, the German Working group on Data Retention made a list of five demands that basically ask from the Federal Government to cooperate with other states and bodies to repeal the EU data retention directive, to never re-enact the German data retention law and to refuse data collection on innocent citizens such as air travellers data. The group believes that "European citizens should be given the right to file constitutional complaints directly with the European Court of Justice" and that all existing "security" measures should be reviewed by an independent body in order to "systematically examine their compatibility with our fundamental rights, their effectiveness, their cost, their harmful side-effects and alternatives." After Germany's and Romania's unconstitutionality decisions and after other EU members countries have not succeed in implementing the directive, the Working Group publicly announced it would continue the efforts to persuade the EU "to repeal its data retention directive". Class-action law suit against data retention (5.03.2010) http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/51/1/lang,en/ Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung Press Conference - Constitutional complaint filed against German Telecomms Data Retention Act (31.12.2007) http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/184/79/lang,en/ German High Court Limits Phone and E-Mail Data Storage (2.03.2010) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,681251,00.html German court strikes blow against EU data-retention regime (3.03.2010) http://euobserver.com/9/29595 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (only in German, 2.03.2010) http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011 EDRi-gram: German Constitutional Court held hearing on data retention (16.12.2009) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.24/german-constitutional-court-hearing… ============================================================ 2. EDRi sends open letter to EU Commissioners to oppose Internet blocking ============================================================ EDRi's letter was sent to Commissioners Cecilia Malmstrvm (Home Affairs), Viviane Reding (Justice and Fundamental Rights) and Neelie Kroes (Digital Agenda). The letter congratulates the Commissioners for their nominations and approval in their new portfolios. It welcomes the positive statements made by all three Commissioners on the need to respect fundamental rights and to insist that legislation is "evidence based". EDRi warns in the letter that the nature of the arguments surrounding Internet blocking is such that this positive approach will be under pressure right from the start, due to the pending re-launch of the "Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA". That proposal, when originally launched in 2009, contained the populist, but profoundly flawed suggestion that Internet access providers be required to "block" access to illegal websites. The issue at stake - child exploitation and child abuse images published online - is too serious to have policy based on headlines rather than effectiveness. As a result, EDRi's letter stated that, in order to develop an effective strategy, a thorough and diligent analysis needs to be done. Such an analysis would consider: - The nature of the problem being tackled; The proposal seeks to address illegal websites. These sites are almost all based in the territories of the EU's major trading partners. As a result, it is clearly inappropriate to adopt a strategy of blocking, which leaves the material online, criminals uninvestigated and victims unidentified. - The legality of the measure being proposed; Research undertaken by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and a team of experts funded by the Open Society Institute in the last twelve months have highlighted major legal questions about the legality of imposing blocking obligations on Internet access providers or coercing them into this activity. - The scope, scale and nature of possible unintended consequences; Internet blocking creates several dangers simultaneously. On the one hand, by creating the illusion of activity in the area of online child abuse websites, political pressure will be reduced and real international action to deal with the problem properly will become even less likely than it currently is. Secondly, as is obvious from the recent plague of orders in the EU to block (sometimes perfectly legal) gambling websites, once blocking is introduced, it will be used for more and more purposes. Thirdly, as current blocking technologies work very badly, there will be more and more calls for increasingly intrusive technologies to be employed to provide more effective blocking. Finally, more efficient blocking technologies will also be more effective at permitting Internet access providers to discriminate between the amount of access offered to different online resources, creating a non-neutral Internet, to the detriment of European consumers and to European innovation. - The availability of less intrusive measures. The EU's strategy of hotlines and "notice and takedown" needs to be rolled out internationally. This approach has been proven to work for the type of material being addressed in this context. Furthermore, it is time, at last, to fully respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly with regard to the obligation on states party to take "all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials." Finally, the European Financial Coalition on Child Pornography must be rescued from its inertia and paralysis, restrict itself to undertaking the same activities as its US counterparts (and not, for example "developing a framework to circumvent data protection regulations, bank secrecy codes, criminal legislation and contract law across the EU" as reported in one newspaper). EDRi stressed, however, that "industry "self-regulation" should never be used in a way which circumvents legal protections, democratic decision-making or places private business priorities ahead of those established by democratically-elected governments". The European Commission plans to re-launch the legislative proposal at the end of March. Banks urged to expose child porn money trails (9.11.2008) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/09/child-porn-money-trials EDRi's letter to the European Commission: http://www.edri.org/files/edri_open_letter.pdf Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009PC0135:EN:… Impact assessment to a Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (25.03.2009) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2009:0355:FIN:EN:… Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Turkey and Internet Censorship http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2010/01/42294_en.pdf OSI-funded research: Internet blocking balancing cybercrime responses in democratic societies - Executive summary (10.2009) http://www.aconite.com/sites/default/files/Internet_Blocking_and_Democracy_… OSI-funded research: Internet blocking balancing cybercrime responses in democratic societies - Full report (10.2009) http://www.aconite.com/sites/default/files/Internet_blocking_and_Democracy.… ============================================================ 3. ECJ: The Data Protection Authorities need to be completely independent ============================================================ A European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision made public on 9 March 2010 in the case of the European Commission vs. Germany rules that the Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) established in accordance with the Data Protection Directive 95/46 needs to be completely independent. In this case the German regional DPAs were considered as not independent, since they are part of the regional administration and subject to State scrutiny. The ECJ decision explained that "the supervisory authorities provided for in Article 28 of Directive 95/46 are therefore the guardians of those fundamental rights and freedoms, and their existence in the Member States is considered, as is stated in the 62nd recital in the preamble to Directive 95/46, as an essential component of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data." On the scope of the requirements of independence of the supervisory authorities the court concluded that these authorities "must enjoy an independence allowing them to perform their duties free from external influence. That independence precludes not only any influence exercised by the supervised bodies, but also any directions or any other external influence, whether direct or indirect, which could call into question the performance by those authorities of their task consisting of establishing a fair balance between the protection of the right to private life and the free movement of personal data." The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) who supported the European Commission's case in front of the ECJ was pleased with the judgement. "The judgement of the Court is of great importance. It strengthens and clarifies the position of data protection authorities as part of the fundamental right to data protection. This judgement is relevant for all supervisory authorities in all EU Member States" said the EDPS. The European Commission started in 2005 an infringement procedure against Germany and Austria for not having created an adequate independence of the Data Protection Authorities. ECJ Decision in Case 518/07 - European Commission vs. Germany (9.03.2010) http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&numaff=C-518%2F07+&Su… EDPS welcomes Court of Justice's ruling strengthening independent position of data protection authorities (9.03.2010) http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/… EDRi-gram: EC: data protection inadequate in Austria and Germany (24.08.2005) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.17/DPA ============================================================ 4. UK Government to decide on the Internet disconnections and web blocking ============================================================ Discussions continue in the House of Lords over the controversial Digital Economy Bill especially over Internet disconnections (or account suspension, as the UK Government is calling it now) and web blocking. The draft law would give the power to the secretary of state at the Government Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) and not to the Parliament to decide upon the maximum period of account suspension for people found guilty of illegal file sharing. Following the strong opposition against the disconnection of alleged illegal file sharers, the Government stated that it would apply only a "temporary suspension" of the Internet accounts. "We will not terminate the accounts of infringers ... (but) ... We added account suspension to the list of possible technical measures which might be considered." DBIS argues that "temporary suspension can't effectively mean termination of an internet connection". However, there is no clear definition in the bill to what "temporary" means. As a response to an e-petition posted on Number 10 website and closed on 23 February 2010 asking for the abandonment of the plans to " ban individuals from the internet based on their use of peer to peer file sharing", the government says: "We will not terminate the accounts of infringers - it is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme - and therefore probably criminal - cases." "It is still the case that on the say-so of record labels and film studios people will have their internet connections suspended (i.e. disconnected). All that the Government seems to be saying is that permanent disconnection will be reserved for the very worst offenders. But they have been saying that since day one. There is no change," commented ISP TalkTalk. A worrying situation occurred following the submission by the Liberal Democrats and Tories of an amendment against Clause 17 pushed by the Labourists as a means to "future proof" copyright against infringement. In spite of the warnings of the EDRi-member Open Rights Group, Consumer Focus and others, the amendment introduced by Liberal Democrats and Tories, which is even worse and more threatening, was passed by the House of Lords on 4 March on second reading. Answering to the appeal made by the Open Rights Group, Lord Tim Clement-Jones, one of the peers having introduced the amendment, argued that the amendment (called amendment 120A) would enable the High Court to grant an injunction requiring ISPs to block access to websites accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright infringing material. He stated that the intention was to apply the injunction only to sites "where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question." The amendment faced opposition even from within the Liberal Democrat Party. ISPA, the association of UK ISPs, considers the amendment "misjudged and disproportionate" and Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group believes that "this would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies. (...) Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action." The Bill is still to go through a third reading in the House of Lords and then two readings, a committee stage, a report stage and a final reading in the House of Commons. Mandelson could decide length of internet suspensions for filesharers (23.02.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/23/mandelson-decide-internet-… Plans to cut off internet connections of illegal filesharers dumped (22.02.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/22/plans-cut-off-connections-… Confirmed: Lib Dems and Conservatives force web blocking into the Digital Economy Bill (3.03.2010) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/confirmed-web-blocking-in-digital-… Lord Clement-Jones on the Digital Economy Bill: web blocking amendment (3.03.2010) http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165… New amendment gives copyright owners a blank cheque for web censorship (4.03.2010) http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2010/03/new-amendment-gives-copyright-owners.… ISPA Outraged by Amendment on Network Level Blocking to Digital Economy Bill (3.03.2010) http://www.ispa.org.uk/press_office/page_767_a39a1f17a5a4b823db3ba7b947f118… Lords copyright change 'could block YouTube' (4.03.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/04/lords-digital-economy-bill EDRi-gram: Three strikes plans in UK (4.11.2009) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.21/three-strikes-uk ============================================================ 5. PNR agreements with US and Australia on the European Parliament's Agenda ============================================================ The European Parliament (EP) has discussed last week the PNR (Passenger Name Records) agreements with the US and Australia. MEP Sophie In't Veld (ALDE, Netherlands) explained that the Parliament has traditionally been more opposed to PNR agreements than to SWIFT. She said that it would be inappropriate to give the Parliament an option only to say "yes" or "no" to the proposal. As the EP previously took the identical EU-US PNR agreement to the European Court of Justice, it would be illogical to say "yes" while saying "no" would cause problems for air carriers and would negate whatever purposes the system might be used for. "The PNR case is more complicated", she said, since "the consequences will be much more serious": the flow of data will have to stop if there is a no vote. In addition, "the provision of PNR data is part of the conditions the United States have imposed in exchange for a derogation from the visa regime." The Civil Liberties Committee has suggested postponing their vote on the matter so that a board PNR agreement may be constructed that should meet the Parliament's demands regarding data protection. The Commission could develop a new mandate and, possibly in April this year, the Parliament could establish its minimum requirements for such an agreement. This approach could cover deals with the US, Australia and other third countries and establish the basis for an internal EU PNR. Minimum requirements which the Parliament should consider include purpose limitation, legal status of agreements, adequate data protection and storage periods. The Council representative said it was up to the Commission to draft a proposal. The Commission doubted the time frame suggested by In't Veld, saying that it could take until Autumn for such a draft to be ready and approved by the European Parliament. The US is very unhappy with the proposal of the LIBE committee and sent Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer at the US Homeland Security Department to have discussions in the European Parliament. She pointed out that the PNR was very effective in fighting terror, making reference to a report from February 2010 claiming that the US Customs and Border Protection Department complied with the US-EU Data Sharing Deal. She also added that the "PNR was useful in detecting one third of the potential terrorists the US identified last year." The European Parliament has the possibility to reject the PNR agreement, as it happened in the SWIFT case. In fact some MEPs also warned the EU Council: "If you act as if there had been no SWIFT, this would not be proper cooperation. But I am glad to see the Commission is negotiating a shift of position and I hope the Council will move in the same direction", said Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens-EFA, Germany). MEPs want rules on PNR data transfers to non-EU states (5.03.2010) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-69752-060-03-1… Meeting Agenda - LIBE Committee http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/organes/libe/libe_20100304… US seeks to persuade EU deputies to back terror data deal (8.03.2010) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100308/pl_afp/euusattacksdata Counter-terrorism agreements: MEPs up pressure on passenger data (5.03.2010) http://www.europolitics.info/europolitics/counter-terrorism-agreements-meps… EDRi-gram: DHS Report shows lack of compliance with the EU-US PNR agreement (14.01.2010) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.1/pnr-dhs-report ============================================================ 6. French Constitutional Court: No to police access to private space CCTV ============================================================ On 25 February 2010, the French Constitutional Council gave its decision on the appeal made by a group of more than 60 senators and 60 deputies against the law reinforcing the fight against gang violence and the protection of people under public service missions. The appeal was referring to three articles of the law. The council decided that two of the articles under question, art 1 and art.13 respectively, were constitutional and therefore ruled against the appeal in their case. Article 1 introduces in the French Penal Code a new crime which is the participation in a gang with the intention to commit violent acts. Article 13 introduces in the Penal Code provisions related to repressing the intrusion of non-authorised people and the introduction of weapons into an educational establishment. The Council decided that article 5 which was allowing the transmission to the police of images obtained by video-surveillance systems in non-public spaces of a building in case of "events and situations susceptible of needing police intervention" was not constitutional and therefore ruled against it. The Council considered that the text did not provide for an appropriate protection of residents' privacy and that the legislator did not succeed in creating a proper balance between the respect of private life and other constitutional requirements such as the search of criminals and the prevention of attacks to public order. Also, the Constitutional Council pointed out that it falls upon the legislator to decide on the conciliation between constitutional demands related to the respect to privacy and demands related to the prevention of attacks to public order. This decision is in agreement with CNIL's position which reminds that the installation of video-surveillance devices in private places contravenes with the freedom of information legislation of 1978, as a person's image is considered personal data and the transmission by video-camera of this image is considered as automatic data processing. The commission believes the legal status of video-surveillance should be revised and harmonised so that there is a proper independent control of the systems, under its monitoring. The French Government stated it took note of the Council's opinion and that article 5 would "make the object of re-writing allowing it to take into consideration the Constitutional Council's observations and to be re-discussed by the Parliament during the examination in the Senate of the draft law on orientation and programming of the performance of internal security (LOPPSI)". Constitutional Council Press Release 2010-604 DC (25.02.2010) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-… Constitutional Council Decision no. 2010-604 DC (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-… Video-surveillance : insufficient private life protection guaranties made the Constitutional Council censor the transmission of residence images (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://www.cnil.fr/la-cnil/actu-cnil/article/article/2/videosurveillance-de… The Constitutional Council validates the law on gang violence, except for an article on video-surveillance (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/politique/20100225.FAP0684/politiqu… Validation by the Constitutional Council of the 14 articles of the law reinforcing the fight against gang violence and the protection of persons under public service missions (only in French, 26.02.2010) http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_la_une/toute_l_actualite/securite-i… ============================================================ 7. Article 29: Reduce the storing period of Google Street View's images ============================================================ Alex Turk, the head of EU Article 29 Working Party (WP) sent a letter on 11 February 2010 asking Google company to warn people about the arrival of its Street View vehicles and to reduce the retention period of unblurred material from one year to six months. Google has met a series of problems during the last period with its Street View system in Europe being under fire from several EU member states such as Germany, Finland, France as well as non-member states such as Switzerland. According to a Dow Jones report, the letter sent by WP Article 29 asked Google to notify cities and towns about the arrival of its Street View cars and tricycles by "appropriate announcements in the national, regional and or local press," while Google said it already does this by posting the details on its web site. Regarding the data storage period, Michael Jones, Google's chief technology advocate and founder of Google Earth, stated the company had negotiated with EU authorities and agreed to one year storage of images from the day they were published on Street View. Therefore, the company believed "the retention of the unblurred images is legitimate and justified". The company tried to explain why it needed to keep unblurred images (including elements such as faces, licence plates etc.) for a year. "The need to retain the unblurred images is legitimate and justified - to ensure the quality and accuracy of our maps, to improve our ability to rectify mistakes in blurring, as well as to use the data we have collected to build better maps products for our users," said Peter Fleischer, the Google lawyer in charge of privacy issues. In the meantime, in Germany, Consumer Affairs Minister Ilse Aigner had threatened to take legal action in order to prevent Google Street View from offering photos on German cities and streets. But Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Street View application would not be hampered despite the privacy concerns raised by the consumer affairs minister. "Those that consider (Street View) to be an invasion of their private sphere can make use of the right to object," she said in her weekly podcast on 27 February. In order to address privacy concerns, the German version of Street View will offer residents the possibility to remove pictures before they are published and it will include a tool allowing the quick removal once the images are published. Lena Wagner, a Google Deutschland spokeswoman also stated that the company would announce when its cars would be driving by to take pictures. Yet, although in February the company stated it would not drop Street View in Europe, in an interview at CeBIT Technology Fair in Hanover that took place between 2-6 March 2010, Jones stated: "I think we would consider whether we want to drive through Europe again, because it would make the expense so draining", which sounded rather like a threat. EU rattles sabre at Street View - Warn people you're coming, Google told (26.02.2010) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/26/eu_street_view/ Google May Review EU Drives, Won't Drop Street View (Update1) (3.03.2010) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/google-may-review-eu-drives-won… Germany's Merkel gives blessing to Google Street View (28.02.2010) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5298065,00.html EU Wants Google Street View Curbed (26.02.2010) http://gigaom.com/2010/02/26/eu-google-street-view/ Google warned by EU over Street View map photos (26.02.2010) http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_20… Google Street View May Breach EU Law, Officials Say (Update1) (26.02.2010) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=a2Tbh.fOrFB0 EDRi-gram: Google's Street View faces trial in Switzerland (18.11.2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.22/google-streetview-privacy-switzerla… ============================================================ 8. Survey on Chip implants in Germany =========================================================== According to a survey carried out by German IT industry lobby group BITKOM, 23% out of 1000 German respondents would accept to have a microchip implanted in their body if that would bring concrete benefits from it. The survey was meant to show the increase of the division between real life and the virtual world, as one of the themes of the CeBIT technology fair having taken place in Hanover between 2 and 6 March 2010. However, the study findings are debatable as the respondent sample was not only small but also taken from a special pool (CeBIT visitors who are probably IT inclined anyway). And one must not overlook the fact that 77% of the study respondents were, in fact, against the respective technology. In fact 72% stated they wouldn't "under any circumstances" allow electronics in their body. About 16% of the respondents said they would wear an implanted chip in order to be saved faster by emergency services in case of a fire or accident and 5% would be willing to have an implant to make their shopping easier. "This is of course an extreme example of how far people can imagine networks going," said BITKOM chief Professor August-Wilhelm Scheer during CeBIT who added that implanting chips into humans was going to become commonplace. "Some developments can already be seen. CDs and DVDs are going to disappear as material sources of information. Wallpaper will be replaced by flat screens and many of us will have chips implanted beneath our skin by the end of next decade." The professor did not say anything about the privacy and security concerns related to the issue. Almost all implantable microchips already in use (as those for medical purposes) are not encrypted and therefore vulnerable to third-party scanning. Implanted microchips would be in the same situation as the microchip passports which have been proven unreliable and easily scanable by a possible hacker. One quarter of Germans fine with microchip skin implant (1.03.2010) http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100301-25589.html CeBIT: Quarter Of Germans Happy To Have Chip Implants (2.03.2010) http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/cebit-quarter-of-germans-happy-to-have-ch… ============================================================ 9. Declaration on Safer Internet proposed in the Macedonian Parliament ============================================================ On 24 February 2010, a group of MPs submitted a Draft-Declaration on Safer Internet during the 39th session of the Commission for Transport, Communications and Environment of the Macedonian Parliament. MP Aleksandar Spasenovski is the initiator of the Declaration and the proposal was submitted by both members of the government and the opposition: Jani Makraduli, Silvana Boneva, Tahir Hani, Flora Kadriu, Andrej Zhernovski and Slavica Grkovska-Loshkova. The draft declaration is a follow up of the celebration of the European Safer Internet Day and consultations with the NGO sector, primarily with the Metamorphosis Foundation. According to the proposer, "the Declaration on Safer Internet is a step that Macedonia takes in the process of approximation to the standards and policies of the European Union, and for raising the safety standard and quality of life of its citizens." The declaration indicates the necessity for a further improvement of the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and creativity, while noting the positive impact of information technology and the Internet on the development of a knowledge-based society to incite various social factors in their areas "in accordance with the standards and practices of the EU Member States and the EU itself, to pay more attention to the establishing of a safer online environment for children, inter alia by establishing appropriate institutions in this field, such as the Center for Safer Internet." In addition, the draft declaration also stipulates: "Having in mind the fact that knowledge and education are the most effective means to protect children from risks on the internet, we urge the Ministry of Education and Science to introduce contents in the curriculums for the primary and secondary education that would enable children to learn how to behave online and how to protect themselves from the security threats present on the internet." The document also urges the Directorate for Personal Data Protection to continue and improve its work related to personal data protection. The draft declaration recommends that during the setup of public wireless hotspots "assumptions should be made, that will allow children to be protected from access to online content harmful to their moral and health." It also recommends that the appropriate institutions should implement or adopt "some of the European rating systems for multimedia content according to the age for which they are intended." Draft-Declaration on Safer Internet (only in Macedonian, 25.02.2010) http://www.sobranie.mk/ext/materialdetails.aspx?Id=4d1989be-8a15-42b8-a90c-… Position of the Metamorphosis Foundation regarding the limitation of access to digital content for protecting children (5.02.2010) http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/activities/position-of-the-metamorphosis-fo… (Contribution by EDRi-member Metamorphosis Foundation - Macedonia) ============================================================ 10. ENDitorial: ACTA, the Euro Parliament resolution and political clarity ============================================================ The European Parliament adopted a widely-reported Resolution on ACTA on 10 March. It contained several positive elements. For example, it insists that the Agreement not go beyond the requirements of existing EU law and demands an impact assessment of ACTA's implementation on fundamental rights and data protection. This latter provision is particularly important with regard to countries outside the EU, which do not always have legal protections for fundamental rights. In addition, however, and widely unnoticed, a last-minute oral amendment from the conservative EPP group was also adopted. This amendment calls for "the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA and limit them to the existing European IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting". That text was adopted by a huge majority. So, if the European Commission persists in pushing non-counterfeiting issues such as ISP liability in ACTA, it will only have itself to blame if and when the Parliament is pushed into rejecting the agreement by the Commission's actions. This clarity from the Parliament is a remarkable contribution to clarity and openness in this dossier, following weeks and months of half-truths and misleading statements, particularly with regard to "three-strikes" measures. We have recently heard several positive statements from politicians about "three strikes" and ACTA. The assistant US Trade Representative Stanford McCoy said "the U.S. Government is not seeking these or any other obligations that would go beyond U.S. law in the ACTA", the European Commissioner Karel de Gucht's spokesman said the EU is "not supporting and will not accept that an eventual ACTA agreement creates an obligation to disconnect people" and the German minister said "the Federal Government will accept no agreement that contains blocking of Internet access". The only problem is that it was never anybody's intention to place an obligation on ISPs via ACTA to introduce a "three-strikes" rule or similar. As the recent leak of the draft digital chapter clearly and definitively proved, the plan was to remove ISPs' limitations of liability for IPR infringements unless they chose to implement "measures" to prevent these infringements from happening. The intention was, therefore, to coerce ISPs into far-reaching policing activities in order to give themselves adequate legal certainty. The point is therefore not to use ACTA to mandate the precise nature of these activities - so the assurances on this point were devoid of all real meaning. It is interesting to note that, despite the German Minister's and European Commission's protestations that they would not accept the cutting of Internet access being in ACTA, the leak indicating the different negotiating partners' positions shows no hint of any EU opposition to the measures explicitly aimed at coercing ISPs into cutting subscribers' connections. Now there is no room for doubt. The European Parliament has said that "the proposed agreement should not make it possible for any so-called 'three-strikes' procedures to be imposed" and, in any event "any agreement must include the stipulation that the closing-off of an individual's Internet access shall be subject to prior examination by a court. While the Parliament's resolution is not legally binding, it would be foolhardy for the Commission to believe that a majority of 633 to 13 (with 16 abstentions) from the only directly elected EU institution can be safely ignored. Leaked digital chapter (17.02.2010) http://sites.google.com/site/actadigitalchapter/acta_digital_chapter.pdf Negotiating positions (12.02.2010) http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/ACTA-6437-10.pdf USTR: No mandatory 'three strikes' or filtering in ACTA (10.02.2010) http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/ustr-no-mandatory-three-… German minister's position (only in German, 3.03.2010) http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,681142,00.html EDRi-gram: Leaked ACTA text confirms suspicions (24.02.2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.4/leaked-acta-confirms-suspicions (Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi) ============================================================ 11. Recommended Action ============================================================ Document Freedom Day 2010 - 31.03.2010 Free your documents, save your information! http://fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20100302-01.en.html http://www.documentfreedom.org Reporters Without Borders will celebrate World Day Against Cyber Censorship on 12 March 2010 http://www.rsf.org/World-Day-Against-Cyber-Censorship.html ============================================================ 12. Recommended Reading ============================================================ The safe use of new technologies Pupils in schools that use 'managed' online systems have a better knowledge and understanding of how to stay safe when using new technologies, according to a report published by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. 'Managed' systems are systems that have fewer inaccessible sites than 'locked' systems and so require pupils to take more responsibility for their own safety. 'Locked' systems make many websites inaccessible and although this ensures pupils' safety in school it does not encourage the pupils to take responsibility for their actions or prepare them for dealing with systems that are not locked. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/Students-safest-using-the-interne… Full report (02.2010) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/10750/128225/file/The%20safe%20us… M@rsouin, CREM et Universiti de Rennes 1:A first evaluation of the HADOPI law effects on the practicies on the French Internet Users (09.03.2010) http://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2010/0309//300415066.pdf ============================================================ 13. Agenda ============================================================ 29-31 March 2010, Barcelona, Spain (D') Evolution Summit, the benefit of Culture Citizen's Summit in response to the "Economy of the Culture" Congress of the Ministers of Culture meeting of the EU during the Spanish Presidency 12-13 April 2010, Oxford, UK 4th PrivacyOS Conference https://www.privacyos.eu/archives/98-Invitation-4th-PrivacyOS-Conference-Ox… 14-16 April 2010, Berlin, Germany re:publica'10 - Conference about blogs, social media and the digital society http://www.re-publica.de/10 14-18 April 2010, Madrid, Spain Campus Party Europe - Technology, creativity and digital culture online http://www.campus-party.eu 19-20 April 2010, Istanbul, Turkey 8th Communia Workshop - Education and the Public Domain: The Emergence of a Shared Educational Commons http://www.communia-project.eu/ws08 24 April 2010, London, United Kingdom Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010 http://www.okfn.org/okcon/ 29-30 April 2010, Madrid, Spain EuroDIG 2010 http://www.eurodig.org/ 6-7 May 2010, Krems, Austria 4th International Conference on eDemocracy 2010 http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/gpa/telematik/veranstaltungen/id/1… 26-28 May 2010, Amsterdam, Netherlands World Congress on Information Technology http://www.wcit2010.com/ 30-31 May 2010, Montreal, Canada Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Submissions for thematic presentations: 20 March 2010 http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop 8-9 June 2010 - Funchal, Portugal 4th International Workshop on RFID Technology - Concepts, Applications, Challenges - IWRT 2010 http://www.iceis.org/Workshops/iwrt/iwrt2010-cfp.htm. 25-27 June 2010, Cluj, Romania Networking Democracy? New Media Innovations in Participatory Politics http://www.brisc.info/NetDem/ 9-11 July 2010, Gdansk, Poland Wikimedia 2010 - the 6th annual Wikimedia Conference http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 25-31 July 2010, Meissen, Germany European Summer School on Internet Governance Call open until 15 May 2010. http://www.euro-ssig.eu 29-31 July 2010, Freiburg, Germany IADIS - International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings 2010 Paper submissions: 15 March 2010 http://www.ict-conf.org/ 13-17 September 2010, Crete, Greece Privacy and Security in the Future Internet 3rd Network and Information Security (NIS'10) Summer School http://www.nis-summer-school.eu ============================================================ 14. About ============================================================ EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 27 members based or with offices in 17 different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation. http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 8.4, 24 February 2010
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRi-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 8.5, 10 March 2010 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. German Federal Constitutional Court rejects data retention law 2. EDRi sends open letter to EU Commissioners to oppose Internet blocking 3. ECJ: The Data Protection Authorities need to be completely independent 4. UK Government to decide on the Internet disconnections and web blocking 5. PNR agreements with US and Australia on the European Parliament's Agenda 6. French Constitutional Court: No to police access to private space CCTV 7. Article 29: Reduce the storing period of Google Street View's images 8. Survey on Chip implants in Germany 9. Declaration on Safer Internet proposed in the Macedonian Parliament 10. ENDitorial: ACTA, the Euro Parliament resolution and political clarity 11. Recommended Action 12. Recommended Reading 13. Agenda 14. About ============================================================ 1. German Federal Constitutional Court rejects data retention law ============================================================ The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected on 2 March 2010 the legislation requiring electronic communications traffic data retention for a period of 6 months. The legislation on data retention, implementing the similar EU Directive, was passed by the Bundestag on 9 November 2007 and entered into force on 1 January 2008. On 31 December 2007, a constitutional complaint was brought to the Federal Constitutional Court by 35 000 citizens (the largest number of plaintiffs ever involved in a case) at the initiative of the German privacy group AK Vorrat (Working group on data retention), one the plaintiffs being the present Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. The court judges considered that the data storage was not secure enough, that it was not clear what it would be used for and that it could "cause a diffusely threatening feeling of being under observation that can diminish an unprejudiced perception of one's basic rights in many areas," as stated the president of the court, Hans-J|rgen Papier. They considered that "such retention represents an especially grave intrusion" into citizens' privacy. The court did not annul the legislation entirely but suspended it, asking for the immediate deletion of the data already collected and for the massive modification of the law in order to provide stricter conditions for to the use and storage of the data. According to the decision, the data should be encoded and there should be "transparent control" of the information usage. The ruling also stated that the data usage control process should involve the government's Commissioner for data protection and freedom of information and that the secret use of data should be possible only in individual cases and ordered by the court. Following the court's ruling, the German Working group on Data Retention made a list of five demands that basically ask from the Federal Government to cooperate with other states and bodies to repeal the EU data retention directive, to never re-enact the German data retention law and to refuse data collection on innocent citizens such as air travellers data. The group believes that "European citizens should be given the right to file constitutional complaints directly with the European Court of Justice" and that all existing "security" measures should be reviewed by an independent body in order to "systematically examine their compatibility with our fundamental rights, their effectiveness, their cost, their harmful side-effects and alternatives." After Germany's and Romania's unconstitutionality decisions and after other EU members countries have not succeed in implementing the directive, the Working Group publicly announced it would continue the efforts to persuade the EU "to repeal its data retention directive". Class-action law suit against data retention (5.03.2010) http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/51/1/lang,en/ Arbeitskreis Vorratsdatenspeicherung Press Conference - Constitutional complaint filed against German Telecomms Data Retention Act (31.12.2007) http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/184/79/lang,en/ German High Court Limits Phone and E-Mail Data Storage (2.03.2010) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,681251,00.html German court strikes blow against EU data-retention regime (3.03.2010) http://euobserver.com/9/29595 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (only in German, 2.03.2010) http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-011 EDRi-gram: German Constitutional Court held hearing on data retention (16.12.2009) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.24/german-constitutional-court-hearing… ============================================================ 2. EDRi sends open letter to EU Commissioners to oppose Internet blocking ============================================================ EDRi's letter was sent to Commissioners Cecilia Malmstrvm (Home Affairs), Viviane Reding (Justice and Fundamental Rights) and Neelie Kroes (Digital Agenda). The letter congratulates the Commissioners for their nominations and approval in their new portfolios. It welcomes the positive statements made by all three Commissioners on the need to respect fundamental rights and to insist that legislation is "evidence based". EDRi warns in the letter that the nature of the arguments surrounding Internet blocking is such that this positive approach will be under pressure right from the start, due to the pending re-launch of the "Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA". That proposal, when originally launched in 2009, contained the populist, but profoundly flawed suggestion that Internet access providers be required to "block" access to illegal websites. The issue at stake - child exploitation and child abuse images published online - is too serious to have policy based on headlines rather than effectiveness. As a result, EDRi's letter stated that, in order to develop an effective strategy, a thorough and diligent analysis needs to be done. Such an analysis would consider: - The nature of the problem being tackled; The proposal seeks to address illegal websites. These sites are almost all based in the territories of the EU's major trading partners. As a result, it is clearly inappropriate to adopt a strategy of blocking, which leaves the material online, criminals uninvestigated and victims unidentified. - The legality of the measure being proposed; Research undertaken by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and a team of experts funded by the Open Society Institute in the last twelve months have highlighted major legal questions about the legality of imposing blocking obligations on Internet access providers or coercing them into this activity. - The scope, scale and nature of possible unintended consequences; Internet blocking creates several dangers simultaneously. On the one hand, by creating the illusion of activity in the area of online child abuse websites, political pressure will be reduced and real international action to deal with the problem properly will become even less likely than it currently is. Secondly, as is obvious from the recent plague of orders in the EU to block (sometimes perfectly legal) gambling websites, once blocking is introduced, it will be used for more and more purposes. Thirdly, as current blocking technologies work very badly, there will be more and more calls for increasingly intrusive technologies to be employed to provide more effective blocking. Finally, more efficient blocking technologies will also be more effective at permitting Internet access providers to discriminate between the amount of access offered to different online resources, creating a non-neutral Internet, to the detriment of European consumers and to European innovation. - The availability of less intrusive measures. The EU's strategy of hotlines and "notice and takedown" needs to be rolled out internationally. This approach has been proven to work for the type of material being addressed in this context. Furthermore, it is time, at last, to fully respect the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly with regard to the obligation on states party to take "all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials." Finally, the European Financial Coalition on Child Pornography must be rescued from its inertia and paralysis, restrict itself to undertaking the same activities as its US counterparts (and not, for example "developing a framework to circumvent data protection regulations, bank secrecy codes, criminal legislation and contract law across the EU" as reported in one newspaper). EDRi stressed, however, that "industry "self-regulation" should never be used in a way which circumvents legal protections, democratic decision-making or places private business priorities ahead of those established by democratically-elected governments". The European Commission plans to re-launch the legislative proposal at the end of March. Banks urged to expose child porn money trails (9.11.2008) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/nov/09/child-porn-money-trials EDRi's letter to the European Commission: http://www.edri.org/files/edri_open_letter.pdf Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009PC0135:EN:… Impact assessment to a Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (25.03.2009) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2009:0355:FIN:EN:… Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Turkey and Internet Censorship http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2010/01/42294_en.pdf OSI-funded research: Internet blocking balancing cybercrime responses in democratic societies - Executive summary (10.2009) http://www.aconite.com/sites/default/files/Internet_Blocking_and_Democracy_… OSI-funded research: Internet blocking balancing cybercrime responses in democratic societies - Full report (10.2009) http://www.aconite.com/sites/default/files/Internet_blocking_and_Democracy.… ============================================================ 3. ECJ: The Data Protection Authorities need to be completely independent ============================================================ A European Court of Justice (ECJ) decision made public on 9 March 2010 in the case of the European Commission vs. Germany rules that the Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) established in accordance with the Data Protection Directive 95/46 needs to be completely independent. In this case the German regional DPAs were considered as not independent, since they are part of the regional administration and subject to State scrutiny. The ECJ decision explained that "the supervisory authorities provided for in Article 28 of Directive 95/46 are therefore the guardians of those fundamental rights and freedoms, and their existence in the Member States is considered, as is stated in the 62nd recital in the preamble to Directive 95/46, as an essential component of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data." On the scope of the requirements of independence of the supervisory authorities the court concluded that these authorities "must enjoy an independence allowing them to perform their duties free from external influence. That independence precludes not only any influence exercised by the supervised bodies, but also any directions or any other external influence, whether direct or indirect, which could call into question the performance by those authorities of their task consisting of establishing a fair balance between the protection of the right to private life and the free movement of personal data." The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) who supported the European Commission's case in front of the ECJ was pleased with the judgement. "The judgement of the Court is of great importance. It strengthens and clarifies the position of data protection authorities as part of the fundamental right to data protection. This judgement is relevant for all supervisory authorities in all EU Member States" said the EDPS. The European Commission started in 2005 an infringement procedure against Germany and Austria for not having created an adequate independence of the Data Protection Authorities. ECJ Decision in Case 518/07 - European Commission vs. Germany (9.03.2010) http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&numaff=C-518%2F07+&Su… EDPS welcomes Court of Justice's ruling strengthening independent position of data protection authorities (9.03.2010) http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/… EDRi-gram: EC: data protection inadequate in Austria and Germany (24.08.2005) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.17/DPA ============================================================ 4. UK Government to decide on the Internet disconnections and web blocking ============================================================ Discussions continue in the House of Lords over the controversial Digital Economy Bill especially over Internet disconnections (or account suspension, as the UK Government is calling it now) and web blocking. The draft law would give the power to the secretary of state at the Government Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) and not to the Parliament to decide upon the maximum period of account suspension for people found guilty of illegal file sharing. Following the strong opposition against the disconnection of alleged illegal file sharers, the Government stated that it would apply only a "temporary suspension" of the Internet accounts. "We will not terminate the accounts of infringers ... (but) ... We added account suspension to the list of possible technical measures which might be considered." DBIS argues that "temporary suspension can't effectively mean termination of an internet connection". However, there is no clear definition in the bill to what "temporary" means. As a response to an e-petition posted on Number 10 website and closed on 23 February 2010 asking for the abandonment of the plans to " ban individuals from the internet based on their use of peer to peer file sharing", the government says: "We will not terminate the accounts of infringers - it is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme - and therefore probably criminal - cases." "It is still the case that on the say-so of record labels and film studios people will have their internet connections suspended (i.e. disconnected). All that the Government seems to be saying is that permanent disconnection will be reserved for the very worst offenders. But they have been saying that since day one. There is no change," commented ISP TalkTalk. A worrying situation occurred following the submission by the Liberal Democrats and Tories of an amendment against Clause 17 pushed by the Labourists as a means to "future proof" copyright against infringement. In spite of the warnings of the EDRi-member Open Rights Group, Consumer Focus and others, the amendment introduced by Liberal Democrats and Tories, which is even worse and more threatening, was passed by the House of Lords on 4 March on second reading. Answering to the appeal made by the Open Rights Group, Lord Tim Clement-Jones, one of the peers having introduced the amendment, argued that the amendment (called amendment 120A) would enable the High Court to grant an injunction requiring ISPs to block access to websites accused of hosting a "substantial" amount of copyright infringing material. He stated that the intention was to apply the injunction only to sites "where there is a substantial proportion of infringing material that is either hosted by that particular site or is accessed through the particular site in question." The amendment faced opposition even from within the Liberal Democrat Party. ISPA, the association of UK ISPs, considers the amendment "misjudged and disproportionate" and Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group believes that "this would open the door to a massive imbalance of power in favour of large copyright holding companies. (...) Individuals and small businesses would be open to massive 'copyright attacks' that could shut them down, just by the threat of action." The Bill is still to go through a third reading in the House of Lords and then two readings, a committee stage, a report stage and a final reading in the House of Commons. Mandelson could decide length of internet suspensions for filesharers (23.02.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/23/mandelson-decide-internet-… Plans to cut off internet connections of illegal filesharers dumped (22.02.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/feb/22/plans-cut-off-connections-… Confirmed: Lib Dems and Conservatives force web blocking into the Digital Economy Bill (3.03.2010) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/confirmed-web-blocking-in-digital-… Lord Clement-Jones on the Digital Economy Bill: web blocking amendment (3.03.2010) http://www.libdemvoice.org/digital-economy-bill-web-blocking-lib-dems-18165… New amendment gives copyright owners a blank cheque for web censorship (4.03.2010) http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2010/03/new-amendment-gives-copyright-owners.… ISPA Outraged by Amendment on Network Level Blocking to Digital Economy Bill (3.03.2010) http://www.ispa.org.uk/press_office/page_767_a39a1f17a5a4b823db3ba7b947f118… Lords copyright change 'could block YouTube' (4.03.2010) http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/04/lords-digital-economy-bill EDRi-gram: Three strikes plans in UK (4.11.2009) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.21/three-strikes-uk ============================================================ 5. PNR agreements with US and Australia on the European Parliament's Agenda ============================================================ The European Parliament (EP) has discussed last week the PNR (Passenger Name Records) agreements with the US and Australia. MEP Sophie In't Veld (ALDE, Netherlands) explained that the Parliament has traditionally been more opposed to PNR agreements than to SWIFT. She said that it would be inappropriate to give the Parliament an option only to say "yes" or "no" to the proposal. As the EP previously took the identical EU-US PNR agreement to the European Court of Justice, it would be illogical to say "yes" while saying "no" would cause problems for air carriers and would negate whatever purposes the system might be used for. "The PNR case is more complicated", she said, since "the consequences will be much more serious": the flow of data will have to stop if there is a no vote. In addition, "the provision of PNR data is part of the conditions the United States have imposed in exchange for a derogation from the visa regime." The Civil Liberties Committee has suggested postponing their vote on the matter so that a board PNR agreement may be constructed that should meet the Parliament's demands regarding data protection. The Commission could develop a new mandate and, possibly in April this year, the Parliament could establish its minimum requirements for such an agreement. This approach could cover deals with the US, Australia and other third countries and establish the basis for an internal EU PNR. Minimum requirements which the Parliament should consider include purpose limitation, legal status of agreements, adequate data protection and storage periods. The Council representative said it was up to the Commission to draft a proposal. The Commission doubted the time frame suggested by In't Veld, saying that it could take until Autumn for such a draft to be ready and approved by the European Parliament. The US is very unhappy with the proposal of the LIBE committee and sent Mary Ellen Callahan, Chief Privacy Officer at the US Homeland Security Department to have discussions in the European Parliament. She pointed out that the PNR was very effective in fighting terror, making reference to a report from February 2010 claiming that the US Customs and Border Protection Department complied with the US-EU Data Sharing Deal. She also added that the "PNR was useful in detecting one third of the potential terrorists the US identified last year." The European Parliament has the possibility to reject the PNR agreement, as it happened in the SWIFT case. In fact some MEPs also warned the EU Council: "If you act as if there had been no SWIFT, this would not be proper cooperation. But I am glad to see the Commission is negotiating a shift of position and I hope the Council will move in the same direction", said Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens-EFA, Germany). MEPs want rules on PNR data transfers to non-EU states (5.03.2010) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-69752-060-03-1… Meeting Agenda - LIBE Committee http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/organes/libe/libe_20100304… US seeks to persuade EU deputies to back terror data deal (8.03.2010) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100308/pl_afp/euusattacksdata Counter-terrorism agreements: MEPs up pressure on passenger data (5.03.2010) http://www.europolitics.info/europolitics/counter-terrorism-agreements-meps… EDRi-gram: DHS Report shows lack of compliance with the EU-US PNR agreement (14.01.2010) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.1/pnr-dhs-report ============================================================ 6. French Constitutional Court: No to police access to private space CCTV ============================================================ On 25 February 2010, the French Constitutional Council gave its decision on the appeal made by a group of more than 60 senators and 60 deputies against the law reinforcing the fight against gang violence and the protection of people under public service missions. The appeal was referring to three articles of the law. The council decided that two of the articles under question, art 1 and art.13 respectively, were constitutional and therefore ruled against the appeal in their case. Article 1 introduces in the French Penal Code a new crime which is the participation in a gang with the intention to commit violent acts. Article 13 introduces in the Penal Code provisions related to repressing the intrusion of non-authorised people and the introduction of weapons into an educational establishment. The Council decided that article 5 which was allowing the transmission to the police of images obtained by video-surveillance systems in non-public spaces of a building in case of "events and situations susceptible of needing police intervention" was not constitutional and therefore ruled against it. The Council considered that the text did not provide for an appropriate protection of residents' privacy and that the legislator did not succeed in creating a proper balance between the respect of private life and other constitutional requirements such as the search of criminals and the prevention of attacks to public order. Also, the Constitutional Council pointed out that it falls upon the legislator to decide on the conciliation between constitutional demands related to the respect to privacy and demands related to the prevention of attacks to public order. This decision is in agreement with CNIL's position which reminds that the installation of video-surveillance devices in private places contravenes with the freedom of information legislation of 1978, as a person's image is considered personal data and the transmission by video-camera of this image is considered as automatic data processing. The commission believes the legal status of video-surveillance should be revised and harmonised so that there is a proper independent control of the systems, under its monitoring. The French Government stated it took note of the Council's opinion and that article 5 would "make the object of re-writing allowing it to take into consideration the Constitutional Council's observations and to be re-discussed by the Parliament during the examination in the Senate of the draft law on orientation and programming of the performance of internal security (LOPPSI)". Constitutional Council Press Release 2010-604 DC (25.02.2010) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-… Constitutional Council Decision no. 2010-604 DC (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-… Video-surveillance : insufficient private life protection guaranties made the Constitutional Council censor the transmission of residence images (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://www.cnil.fr/la-cnil/actu-cnil/article/article/2/videosurveillance-de… The Constitutional Council validates the law on gang violence, except for an article on video-surveillance (only in French, 25.02.2010) http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/politique/20100225.FAP0684/politiqu… Validation by the Constitutional Council of the 14 articles of the law reinforcing the fight against gang violence and the protection of persons under public service missions (only in French, 26.02.2010) http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_la_une/toute_l_actualite/securite-i… ============================================================ 7. Article 29: Reduce the storing period of Google Street View's images ============================================================ Alex Turk, the head of EU Article 29 Working Party (WP) sent a letter on 11 February 2010 asking Google company to warn people about the arrival of its Street View vehicles and to reduce the retention period of unblurred material from one year to six months. Google has met a series of problems during the last period with its Street View system in Europe being under fire from several EU member states such as Germany, Finland, France as well as non-member states such as Switzerland. According to a Dow Jones report, the letter sent by WP Article 29 asked Google to notify cities and towns about the arrival of its Street View cars and tricycles by "appropriate announcements in the national, regional and or local press," while Google said it already does this by posting the details on its web site. Regarding the data storage period, Michael Jones, Google's chief technology advocate and founder of Google Earth, stated the company had negotiated with EU authorities and agreed to one year storage of images from the day they were published on Street View. Therefore, the company believed "the retention of the unblurred images is legitimate and justified". The company tried to explain why it needed to keep unblurred images (including elements such as faces, licence plates etc.) for a year. "The need to retain the unblurred images is legitimate and justified - to ensure the quality and accuracy of our maps, to improve our ability to rectify mistakes in blurring, as well as to use the data we have collected to build better maps products for our users," said Peter Fleischer, the Google lawyer in charge of privacy issues. In the meantime, in Germany, Consumer Affairs Minister Ilse Aigner had threatened to take legal action in order to prevent Google Street View from offering photos on German cities and streets. But Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Street View application would not be hampered despite the privacy concerns raised by the consumer affairs minister. "Those that consider (Street View) to be an invasion of their private sphere can make use of the right to object," she said in her weekly podcast on 27 February. In order to address privacy concerns, the German version of Street View will offer residents the possibility to remove pictures before they are published and it will include a tool allowing the quick removal once the images are published. Lena Wagner, a Google Deutschland spokeswoman also stated that the company would announce when its cars would be driving by to take pictures. Yet, although in February the company stated it would not drop Street View in Europe, in an interview at CeBIT Technology Fair in Hanover that took place between 2-6 March 2010, Jones stated: "I think we would consider whether we want to drive through Europe again, because it would make the expense so draining", which sounded rather like a threat. EU rattles sabre at Street View - Warn people you're coming, Google told (26.02.2010) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/26/eu_street_view/ Google May Review EU Drives, Won't Drop Street View (Update1) (3.03.2010) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-03/google-may-review-eu-drives-won… Germany's Merkel gives blessing to Google Street View (28.02.2010) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5298065,00.html EU Wants Google Street View Curbed (26.02.2010) http://gigaom.com/2010/02/26/eu-google-street-view/ Google warned by EU over Street View map photos (26.02.2010) http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_20… Google Street View May Breach EU Law, Officials Say (Update1) (26.02.2010) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=a2Tbh.fOrFB0 EDRi-gram: Google's Street View faces trial in Switzerland (18.11.2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number7.22/google-streetview-privacy-switzerla… ============================================================ 8. Survey on Chip implants in Germany =========================================================== According to a survey carried out by German IT industry lobby group BITKOM, 23% out of 1000 German respondents would accept to have a microchip implanted in their body if that would bring concrete benefits from it. The survey was meant to show the increase of the division between real life and the virtual world, as one of the themes of the CeBIT technology fair having taken place in Hanover between 2 and 6 March 2010. However, the study findings are debatable as the respondent sample was not only small but also taken from a special pool (CeBIT visitors who are probably IT inclined anyway). And one must not overlook the fact that 77% of the study respondents were, in fact, against the respective technology. In fact 72% stated they wouldn't "under any circumstances" allow electronics in their body. About 16% of the respondents said they would wear an implanted chip in order to be saved faster by emergency services in case of a fire or accident and 5% would be willing to have an implant to make their shopping easier. "This is of course an extreme example of how far people can imagine networks going," said BITKOM chief Professor August-Wilhelm Scheer during CeBIT who added that implanting chips into humans was going to become commonplace. "Some developments can already be seen. CDs and DVDs are going to disappear as material sources of information. Wallpaper will be replaced by flat screens and many of us will have chips implanted beneath our skin by the end of next decade." The professor did not say anything about the privacy and security concerns related to the issue. Almost all implantable microchips already in use (as those for medical purposes) are not encrypted and therefore vulnerable to third-party scanning. Implanted microchips would be in the same situation as the microchip passports which have been proven unreliable and easily scanable by a possible hacker. One quarter of Germans fine with microchip skin implant (1.03.2010) http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100301-25589.html CeBIT: Quarter Of Germans Happy To Have Chip Implants (2.03.2010) http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/cebit-quarter-of-germans-happy-to-have-ch… ============================================================ 9. Declaration on Safer Internet proposed in the Macedonian Parliament ============================================================ On 24 February 2010, a group of MPs submitted a Draft-Declaration on Safer Internet during the 39th session of the Commission for Transport, Communications and Environment of the Macedonian Parliament. MP Aleksandar Spasenovski is the initiator of the Declaration and the proposal was submitted by both members of the government and the opposition: Jani Makraduli, Silvana Boneva, Tahir Hani, Flora Kadriu, Andrej Zhernovski and Slavica Grkovska-Loshkova. The draft declaration is a follow up of the celebration of the European Safer Internet Day and consultations with the NGO sector, primarily with the Metamorphosis Foundation. According to the proposer, "the Declaration on Safer Internet is a step that Macedonia takes in the process of approximation to the standards and policies of the European Union, and for raising the safety standard and quality of life of its citizens." The declaration indicates the necessity for a further improvement of the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and creativity, while noting the positive impact of information technology and the Internet on the development of a knowledge-based society to incite various social factors in their areas "in accordance with the standards and practices of the EU Member States and the EU itself, to pay more attention to the establishing of a safer online environment for children, inter alia by establishing appropriate institutions in this field, such as the Center for Safer Internet." In addition, the draft declaration also stipulates: "Having in mind the fact that knowledge and education are the most effective means to protect children from risks on the internet, we urge the Ministry of Education and Science to introduce contents in the curriculums for the primary and secondary education that would enable children to learn how to behave online and how to protect themselves from the security threats present on the internet." The document also urges the Directorate for Personal Data Protection to continue and improve its work related to personal data protection. The draft declaration recommends that during the setup of public wireless hotspots "assumptions should be made, that will allow children to be protected from access to online content harmful to their moral and health." It also recommends that the appropriate institutions should implement or adopt "some of the European rating systems for multimedia content according to the age for which they are intended." Draft-Declaration on Safer Internet (only in Macedonian, 25.02.2010) http://www.sobranie.mk/ext/materialdetails.aspx?Id=4d1989be-8a15-42b8-a90c-… Position of the Metamorphosis Foundation regarding the limitation of access to digital content for protecting children (5.02.2010) http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/activities/position-of-the-metamorphosis-fo… (Contribution by EDRi-member Metamorphosis Foundation - Macedonia) ============================================================ 10. ENDitorial: ACTA, the Euro Parliament resolution and political clarity ============================================================ The European Parliament adopted a widely-reported Resolution on ACTA on 10 March. It contained several positive elements. For example, it insists that the Agreement not go beyond the requirements of existing EU law and demands an impact assessment of ACTA's implementation on fundamental rights and data protection. This latter provision is particularly important with regard to countries outside the EU, which do not always have legal protections for fundamental rights. In addition, however, and widely unnoticed, a last-minute oral amendment from the conservative EPP group was also adopted. This amendment calls for "the Commission to continue the negotiations on ACTA and limit them to the existing European IPR enforcement system against counterfeiting". That text was adopted by a huge majority. So, if the European Commission persists in pushing non-counterfeiting issues such as ISP liability in ACTA, it will only have itself to blame if and when the Parliament is pushed into rejecting the agreement by the Commission's actions. This clarity from the Parliament is a remarkable contribution to clarity and openness in this dossier, following weeks and months of half-truths and misleading statements, particularly with regard to "three-strikes" measures. We have recently heard several positive statements from politicians about "three strikes" and ACTA. The assistant US Trade Representative Stanford McCoy said "the U.S. Government is not seeking these or any other obligations that would go beyond U.S. law in the ACTA", the European Commissioner Karel de Gucht's spokesman said the EU is "not supporting and will not accept that an eventual ACTA agreement creates an obligation to disconnect people" and the German minister said "the Federal Government will accept no agreement that contains blocking of Internet access". The only problem is that it was never anybody's intention to place an obligation on ISPs via ACTA to introduce a "three-strikes" rule or similar. As the recent leak of the draft digital chapter clearly and definitively proved, the plan was to remove ISPs' limitations of liability for IPR infringements unless they chose to implement "measures" to prevent these infringements from happening. The intention was, therefore, to coerce ISPs into far-reaching policing activities in order to give themselves adequate legal certainty. The point is therefore not to use ACTA to mandate the precise nature of these activities - so the assurances on this point were devoid of all real meaning. It is interesting to note that, despite the German Minister's and European Commission's protestations that they would not accept the cutting of Internet access being in ACTA, the leak indicating the different negotiating partners' positions shows no hint of any EU opposition to the measures explicitly aimed at coercing ISPs into cutting subscribers' connections. Now there is no room for doubt. The European Parliament has said that "the proposed agreement should not make it possible for any so-called 'three-strikes' procedures to be imposed" and, in any event "any agreement must include the stipulation that the closing-off of an individual's Internet access shall be subject to prior examination by a court. While the Parliament's resolution is not legally binding, it would be foolhardy for the Commission to believe that a majority of 633 to 13 (with 16 abstentions) from the only directly elected EU institution can be safely ignored. Leaked digital chapter (17.02.2010) http://sites.google.com/site/actadigitalchapter/acta_digital_chapter.pdf Negotiating positions (12.02.2010) http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/ACTA-6437-10.pdf USTR: No mandatory 'three strikes' or filtering in ACTA (10.02.2010) http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/02/ustr-no-mandatory-three-… German minister's position (only in German, 3.03.2010) http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,681142,00.html EDRi-gram: Leaked ACTA text confirms suspicions (24.02.2010) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.4/leaked-acta-confirms-suspicions (Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi) ============================================================ 11. Recommended Action ============================================================ Document Freedom Day 2010 - 31.03.2010 Free your documents, save your information! http://fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20100302-01.en.html http://www.documentfreedom.org Reporters Without Borders will celebrate World Day Against Cyber Censorship on 12 March 2010 http://www.rsf.org/World-Day-Against-Cyber-Censorship.html ============================================================ 12. Recommended Reading ============================================================ The safe use of new technologies Pupils in schools that use 'managed' online systems have a better knowledge and understanding of how to stay safe when using new technologies, according to a report published by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills. 'Managed' systems are systems that have fewer inaccessible sites than 'locked' systems and so require pupils to take more responsibility for their own safety. 'Locked' systems make many websites inaccessible and although this ensures pupils' safety in school it does not encourage the pupils to take responsibility for their actions or prepare them for dealing with systems that are not locked. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/News/Students-safest-using-the-interne… Full report (02.2010) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/content/download/10750/128225/file/The%20safe%20us… M@rsouin, CREM et Universiti de Rennes 1:A first evaluation of the HADOPI law effects on the practicies on the French Internet Users (09.03.2010) http://www.lesechos.fr/medias/2010/0309//300415066.pdf ============================================================ 13. Agenda ============================================================ 29-31 March 2010, Barcelona, Spain (D') Evolution Summit, the benefit of Culture Citizen's Summit in response to the "Economy of the Culture" Congress of the Ministers of Culture meeting of the EU during the Spanish Presidency 12-13 April 2010, Oxford, UK 4th PrivacyOS Conference https://www.privacyos.eu/archives/98-Invitation-4th-PrivacyOS-Conference-Ox… 14-16 April 2010, Berlin, Germany re:publica'10 - Conference about blogs, social media and the digital society http://www.re-publica.de/10 14-18 April 2010, Madrid, Spain Campus Party Europe - Technology, creativity and digital culture online http://www.campus-party.eu 19-20 April 2010, Istanbul, Turkey 8th Communia Workshop - Education and the Public Domain: The Emergence of a Shared Educational Commons http://www.communia-project.eu/ws08 24 April 2010, London, United Kingdom Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon) 2010 http://www.okfn.org/okcon/ 29-30 April 2010, Madrid, Spain EuroDIG 2010 http://www.eurodig.org/ 6-7 May 2010, Krems, Austria 4th International Conference on eDemocracy 2010 http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/en/department/gpa/telematik/veranstaltungen/id/1… 26-28 May 2010, Amsterdam, Netherlands World Congress on Information Technology http://www.wcit2010.com/ 30-31 May 2010, Montreal, Canada Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Submissions for thematic presentations: 20 March 2010 http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop 8-9 June 2010 - Funchal, Portugal 4th International Workshop on RFID Technology - Concepts, Applications, Challenges - IWRT 2010 http://www.iceis.org/Workshops/iwrt/iwrt2010-cfp.htm. 25-27 June 2010, Cluj, Romania Networking Democracy? New Media Innovations in Participatory Politics http://www.brisc.info/NetDem/ 9-11 July 2010, Gdansk, Poland Wikimedia 2010 - the 6th annual Wikimedia Conference http://wikimania2010.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 25-31 July 2010, Meissen, Germany European Summer School on Internet Governance Call open until 15 May 2010. http://www.euro-ssig.eu 29-31 July 2010, Freiburg, Germany IADIS - International Conference ICT, Society and Human Beings 2010 Paper submissions: 15 March 2010 http://www.ict-conf.org/ 13-17 September 2010, Crete, Greece Privacy and Security in the Future Internet 3rd Network and Information Security (NIS'10) Summer School http://www.nis-summer-school.eu ============================================================ 14. About ============================================================ EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 27 members based or with offices in 17 different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation. http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[Politech] Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived [priv]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5820618.html Montana Supreme Court justice warns Orwell's 1984 has arrived August 5, 2005 12:13 PM PDT Believe it or not, it's perfectly legal for police to rummage through your garbage for incriminating stuff on you -- even if they don't have a warrant or court approval. The Supreme Court of Montana ruled last month that police could conduct a warrantless "trash dive" into the trash cans in the alley behind the home of a man named Darrell Pelvit. The cops discovered pseudoephedrine boxes -- a solvent with uses including the manufacture of methamphetamine -- and Pelvit eventually ended up in prison. Pelvit's attorney argued that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash, but the court rejected the argument and said the trash was, well, meant to be thrown away. What's remarkable is the concurring opinion of Montana Supreme Court Justice James C. Nelson, who reluctantly went along with his colleagues but warned that George Orwell's 1984 had arrived. We reproduce his concurring opinion in full: -Declan -------------- Justice James C. Nelson concurs. I have signed our Opinion because we have correctly applied existing legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence to resolve this case on its facts. I feel the pain of conflict, however. I fear that, eventually, we are all going to become collateral damage in the war on drugs, or terrorism, or whatever war is in vogue at the moment. I retain an abiding concern that our Declaration of Rights not be killed by friendly fire. And, in this day and age, the courts are the last, if not only, bulwark to prevent that from happening. In truth, though, we area throw-away society. My garbage can contains the remains of what I eat and drink. It may contain discarded credit card receipts along with yesterday's newspaper and junk mail. It might hold some personal letters, bills, receipts, vouchers, medical records, photographs and stuff that is imprinted with the multitude of assigned numbers that allow me access to the global economy and vice versa. My garbage can contains my DNA. As our Opinion states, what we voluntarily throw away, what we discard--i.e., what we abandon--is fair game for roving animals, scavengers, busybodies, crooks and for those seeking evidence of criminal enterprise. Yet, as I expect with most people, when I take the day's trash (neatly packaged in opaque plastic bags) to the garbage can each night, I give little consideration to what I am throwing away and less thought, still, to what might become of my refuse. I don't necessarily envision that someone or something is going to paw through it looking for a morsel of food, a discarded treasure, a stealable part of my identity or a piece of evidence. But, I've seen that happen enough times to understand--though not graciously accept--that there is nothing sacred in whatever privacy interest I think I have retained in my trash once it leaves my control--the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, notwithstanding. Like it or not, I live in a society that accepts virtual strip searches at airports; surveillance cameras; "discount" cards that record my buying habits; bar codes; "cookies" and spywear on my computer; on-line access to satellite technology that can image my back yard; and microchip radio frequency identification devices already implanted in the family dog and soon to be integrated into my groceries, my credit cards, my cash and my new underwear. I know that the notes from the visit to my doctor's office may be transcribed in some overseas country under an out-sourcing contract by a person who couldn't care less about my privacy. I know that there are all sorts of businesses that have records of what medications I take and why. I know that information taken from my blood sample may wind up in databases and be put to uses that the boilerplate on the sheaf of papers I sign to get medical treatment doesn't even begin to disclose. I know that my insurance companies and employer know more about me than does my mother. I know that many aspects of my life are available on the Internet. Even a black box in my car--or event data recorder as they are called--is ready and willing to spill the beans on my driving habits, if I have an event--and I really trusted that car, too. And, I also know that my most unwelcome and paternalistic relative, Uncle Sam, is with me from womb to tomb. Fueled by the paranoia of "ists" and "isms," Sam has the capability of spying on everything and everybody--and no doubt is. But, as Sam says: "It's for my own good." In short, I know that my personal information is recorded in databases, servers, hard drives and file cabinets all over the world. I know that these portals to the most intimate details of my life are restricted only by the degree of sophistication and goodwill or malevolence of the person, institution, corporation or government that wants access to my data. I also know that much of my life can be reconstructed from the contents of my garbage can. I don't like living in Orwell's 1984; but I do. And, absent the next extinction event or civil libertarians taking charge of the government (the former being more likely than the latter), the best we can do is try to keep Sam and the sub-Sams on a short leash. As our Opinion states, search and seizure jurisprudence is centered around privacy expectations and reasonableness considerations. That is true even under the extended protections afforded by Montana's Constitution, Article II, Sections 10. and 11. We have ruled within those parameters. And, as is often the case, we have had to draw a fine line in a gray area. Justice Cotter and those who have signed the Opinion worked hard at defining that line; and I am satisfied we've drawn it correctly on the facts of this case and under the conventional law of abandonment. That said, if this Opinion is used to justify a sweep of the trash cans of a neighborhood or community; or if a trash dive for Sudafed boxes and matchbooks results in DNA or fingerprints being added to a forensic database or results in personal or business records, credit card receipts, personal correspondence or other property being archived for some future use unrelated to the case at hand, then, absent a search warrant, I may well reconsider my legal position and approach to these sorts of cases--even if I have to think outside the garbage can to get there. I concur. /S/ JAMES C. NELSON _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0