July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [cryptography] OTR and deniability
by Meredith L. Patterson 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Marsh Ray <marsh(a)extendedsubset.com> wrote: > On 07/14/2011 01:59 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote: > >> Put another way, the goal in a trial is not a mathematical proof, >> it's proof to a certain standard of evidence, based on many different >> pieces of data. Life isn't a cryptographic protocol. >> > > The interesting thing in this case though is that the person providing the > plaintext log file is: > > a) a convicted felon > b) working for the investigators/prosecutors (since before the purported > log file's creation?) > c) himself skilled in hacking > Those bullet points are far more likely to be brought up at trial than any of the security properties of OTR. Defense counsel has to weigh the benefits of presenting evidence -- will it get some point across, or will it be lost on the judge/jury? I submit that a military judge or a panel of commissioned officers (and maybe some enlisted personnel) is unlikely to appreciate the finer mathematical points, and more likely to fall back on "but there are these logs, right there, and the feds say they're authentic." The defense has plenty of Lamo's own documented actions to use to undermine his credibility. There's much to be said for "baffle them with bullshit" (not that there's necessarily any bullshit even involved), but a jury that doesn't understand an argument is likely to dismiss it as bullshit. Best, --mlp _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography(a)randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography ----- 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 7.9, 6 May 2009
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRi-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 7.9, 6 May 2009 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again 2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest 3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading 4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt 5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act 6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database 7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting 8. Recommended Action 9. Recommended Reading 10. Agenda 11. About ============================================================ 1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again ============================================================ Today, 6 May 2009, in the second reading of the Telecom Package, the European Parliament (EP) voted again for the initial amendment 138, with an overwhelming majority of 407 votes for and just 57 against the proposal. However, on this same occasion, the EP rejected the amendments that would make "network neutrality" principles mandatory. Although initially MEP Catherine Trautmann's report included the original amendment 138/46 as adopted in the first reading by the European Parliament, after the opaque negotiations with the EU Council from the past 2 weeks this amendment had been changed in a weaker version. The initial text "without a prior ruling of the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights" was replaced by "and the right to a judgement by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and acting in respect of due process in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR." Although the new French authority (called Hadopi) that could be established by the three strikes French draft law can't be considered a "tribunal established by art 6 of ECHR", the text left room to more fuzzy interpretations by removing the wording "prior ruling". Thus the compromise text could be interpreted that such an authority could take a decision of cutting one's access to Internet, but one would be allowed to go to court to challenge this decision. But the EP decided that the initial amendment 138 needed to be supported once again. The battle was not easy, though. MEP Rebecca Harms insisted in the plenary for the change in the voting list and for having the original amendment 138 first . Her position was supported by MEP Alexander Alvaro and disagreed by the Rapporteur MEP Catherine Trautmann. The Chairwomen Diana Wallis agreed to go on first with the vote on the Amendment 138. 407 votes from MEPs supported the amendment, thus saying NO to 3 strikes in Europe. Again. Also the report of Malcolm Harbour (PPE/ED - UK) changed the initial amendment 166 adopted in the first reading by the EP that established a clear principle of the Internet neutrality. Now the main protection left is customer information through contracts, but consumer and competition law cannot regulate fundamental rights. The new compromise with the Council that includes the text "limitations on access to and/or use of services and applications" is far from the initial amendment 166 that was clear: "Member States shall ensure that any restrictions on the rights of users to access content, services and applications, if such restrictions are necessary, are implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness" In fact, Mr. Harbour, in an interview published one day before the final vote on the European Parliament website, described as "pure fantasy" the statement that new rules would allow conditional access. "There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that says anything about that," he claimed. But Mr Harbour was contradicting himself just a couple of weeks earlier when he declared publicly that there were service limitations in his own report: "On the question of network neutrality, so called, which I think has been vastly over-inflated in all of this debate, the Commission has quite rightly identified the fact that there is a potential - a potential - for operators to use differing quality of service provision in a discriminatory way, for example, by giving a higher capacity or better service quality to their own services as opposed to those of competitors. The commission made a proposal, the council amended that and we agreed. But the fact remains that any other service limitations which are anti-competitive, and they could certainly include restrictions on access to competitive services like voice over IP, have and can be dealt with by the regulators under the existing framework of competition and access regulation. And that is clear. But what is fundamental is that customer needs to know if there are service limitations and customers may wish to buy a package with service limitations if it is cheaper...There is nothing illegal about service limitations, provided they are not anti-competitive..." The initial amendments voted in the first reading by the EP, were back on the European Parliament agenda under the name of Citizens Rights Amendments proposed by Eva-Britt Svensson on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group together with other support from other MEPs. But besides the amendment that re-instated article 138, all the other citizen rights amendments were rejected by the plenary of the EP. Thus, the Harbour report was adopted and the Trautmann report was rejected. The discussions with the Council will continue and should lead to a third reading at least for the Trautmann Report. But at the same time, there are little chances for something to be changed in relation with the articles on "network neutrality", that would become part of the directive. "Internet has to be free, but not regulation free" - Harbour on telecoms package (5.05.2009) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/welcome/headlines.htm Ask MEPs to adopt Citizens' Rights Amendments on 6 May (5.05.2009) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ Citizens rights amendements http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Citizens%27_Rights_Amendments EDRi-gram: European Parliament ITRE committee votes against the 3 strikes (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/amendment-138-adopted-itre Telecoms Package: When rapporteurs betray EU citizens. (30.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-when-rapporteurs-betray-eu-… Agreement on a new version of amendment 46/138 in Brussels. The European parliament accepted a weaker text. (29.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/new-version-of-amendment-138-46-agreed-weake… Telecoms Package - a licence to chill (4.05.2009) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Item… Amendment 138/46 adopted again. Internet is a fundamental right in Europe (6.05.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-46-adopted-again European Parliament rejects Telecoms Package (6.05.2009) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Item… ============================================================ 2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest ============================================================ According to Sweden's national radio station, Thomas Norstrvm, the judge in The Pirate Bay trial was a member of pro-copyright groups just like several of the main figures in The Pirate Bay case representing the entertaiment industry or prosecution side. Apparently, Norstrvm is a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (Svenska fvreningen fvr upphovsrdtt), together with Henrik Pontin, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted, three representatives of the entertainment industry in the case against The Pirate Bay. The judge also belongs to the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska fvreningen fvr industriellt rdttsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws. Peter Althin, Peter Sunde's lawyer, stated on 23 April that he intended to ask for a retrial. "I will point that out in my appeal, then the court of appeal will decide if the district court decision should be set aside and the case revisited." Judge Norstrvm denied the fact that his involvement with the two pro-copyright organisations constituted a "conflict of interest" in The Pirate Bay trial as the verdict against the site was decided by both the judge and jury. Former Chief Prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem considers that the situation will be harmful for the image of the Swedish courts internationally as well as at the domestic level casting doubt over the judicial neutrality and safety of the Swedish judicial system. Rickard Falkvinge, Pirate Party chairman, has called for the annulment of the verdict considering it is a case of "corruption and miscarriage of justice" adding that "the copyright lobby has really managed to bring corruption to Sweden." On 18 April, the Pirate Party organized demonstrations against the decision of the court in The Pirate Bay case, in several cities of Sweden, with more than 1 000 supporters demonstrating in Stockholm for The Pirate Bay defendants and file sharing. The decision of the court has also led to a significant increase of the Pirate Party membership. Pirate Bay judge and pro-copyright lobbyist accused of bias (23.04.2009) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/ Pirate Bay lawyer calls for retrial (23.04.2009) http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/ Judge In Pirate Bay Trial Biased (23.04.2009) http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209143&cid=27686249 Swedes demonstrate in support of Pirate Bay (19.04.2009) http://www.thelocal.se/18954/20090419/ Pirate Bay judge denies 'conflict of interest' (23.04.2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/23/pirate-bay-judge EDRI-gram: The Pirate Bay founders considered guilty by the first Swedish court (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/the-pirate-bay-court-decision ============================================================ 3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading ============================================================ Although largely opposed by some EU Member States in the Council, criticized by the consumers' organizations and strongly opposed by 4 out of the 7 main political groups (ALDE, GREENS/EFA, NGL, IND/ DEM) in the European Parliament (EP), the directive on performers copyright term extension was passed by the MEPs in the first reading on 23 April 2009. Besides the four groups, there were other national delegations and key MEPs who joined the fight to reject the directive, but the final vote was 317 in favour, 178 against, 37 abstentions. The report by Irish MEP Brian Crowley proposed the extension of the term from 50 to 70 years for performers and recording companies, while the initial proposal of the European Commission was to extend the term up to 95 years. The extension by 20 years seems to be a compromise to acknowledge the disapproval of some of the Member States. "The current differences in term of protection, particularly between Europe and the US, cause legal uncertainty and piracy, especially in the digital environment, where there are no boundaries," said Brian Crowley who added: "The extended term would also benefit the record producers. It would generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the Internet." The new text provides a dedicated fund for session musicians having given up their rights when signing contracts for their performances. The fund is to be financed by contributions from producers who would be obliged to put aside for this at least 20% of the revenues resulted from the extended term, at least once a year. The collective societies are given the right to manage the additional remuneration. A key amendment to ensure benefits accrued only to performers was, unfortunately, rejected. The initial text has also been modified so as to prevent previous contract terms to deduct money from the additional revenues for performers. Also, an approved amendment allows performers to renegotiate contracts concluded before the entry into force of this legislation. "Use it or lose it" clause says that in case the producers do not make the recording available to the public within a year after the 50-year period has ended, their rights expire and performers can be transferred the rights for the respective recording. MEPs ask the Commission to launch by January 2010 an impact assessment of the situation in the European audiovisual sector in order to decide whether a similar copyright extension would be beneficial for that area as well. Member States will have two years to transpose the new legislation. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) criticized the Commission for not having taken into consideration the finding of the two commissioned studies carried out by IViR on the extension of the copyright term. In an open letter addressed in August 2008, he accused the Commission of "wilfully ignoring scientific analysis and evidence". Monique Goyens, director-general of European consumer organisation BEUC, has also criticised the proposed legislation summarising the present situation as follows: "The technology is of the 21st century, the legislation is of the 19th century and the right holder organisations are of the Middle Age." The directive is now being sent to the EU Council of Ministers for first reading, where it is currently blocked by several member states. Parliament buckles: copyright extension goes through to Council of Ministers (23.04.2009) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/23/parliament-buckles-copyright-exte… European Parliament backs 70-year copyright term for sound recordings (27.04.2009) http://www.out-law.com/page-9973 Music copyright still divisive, despite MEPs' backing (29.04.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/music-copyright-divisive-despite-meps… Music copyright to be extended to 70 years for performers (23.04.2009) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-54192-111-04-1… IViR Open Letter to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (28.08.2008) http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf EDRI-gram: Extended copyright term for sound recordings pushed back (8.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.7/extended-copyright-no ============================================================ 4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt ============================================================ The Hadopi (or three strikes) law saga continues with the second reading of the draft law in the French National Assembly having started on 29 April 2009. After the unexpected rejection of the text in the lower chamber on 9 April 2009, the majority came this time decided to pass the law no matter what. The pressure was mainly due to the present discussion in the European Parliament for the adoption of the Telecom Package which would put the French law in a critical position. The French Government has tried its best to push the three strikes law to be voted by the National Assembly as fast as possible. "We will be careful so that you don't go to sleep as we are going to vote this very evening" said deputy Jean-Frangois Copi on 29 April. The entire fight around the draft law seems to have turned into a political debate. This time, present in a large number, the majority members succeeded in rejecting the opposition's proposal to send back the text to the mixed joint commission (commission mixte paritaire). Frank Riester, rapporteur of the text, asked for the rejection of "any amendment that puts into question the compromise of the mixed joint commission" that is the toughest form of the text, thus shown the intention of the majority to pass the draft law as it was before its rejection on 9 April. Fears appear to have existed that the government might make use of the unique (or so called blocked) vote which would have given thepossibility of voting the entire text as a single item instead of voting every single amendment. However, this did not happen and the large number of amendments, especially introduced by the opposition, made it impossible for the Assembly to finalise the discussions and vote by the evening of 5 May. That morning, there were still 160 amendments to examine out of the total of 214. The vote was therefore postponed till 12 Ma, a decision which is definitely disappointing for Nicolas Sarkozy who wanted to get the vote on the law before a final decision of the EP on the Telecom Package. According to Jirimie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, "The HADOPI law will be undoubtedly voted by a blocked majority, on order. But it will remain a political failure for the government and a democratic as well as technological aberration. HADOPI is a warning signal inviting everybody to rise against the harmful consequences of a regulation sacrificing the citizens and the Internet to the out-of-date interests of some". In the mean time, the opposition movements continue. Sci-fi writer Roland Wagnerhas has organised a "Sci-fi against HADOPI" group while an anti-Hadopi march was organised on 1 May 2009 by several organisations at the initiative of Libre Acchs and the French Data Network in Paris. Also, an important initiative has been taken by consumers groups including La Quadrature du Net and UFC Que Choisir who have launched the project Criation Public Internet (Internet Public Creation), a project meant to find new business models and solutions for important issues related to cultural creation and artists' income. After the vote in the National Assembly, the Hadopi text will go back to the Senate for a new reading and in the unlikely case the text of the Senate differs from the one voted by the Assembly, the last word will belong to the deputies. Hadopi: towards a unique vote? (only in French, 4.05.2009) http://www.ecrans.fr/Hadopi-vers-un-vote-unique,7054.html HADOPI: in the wall, honking (only in French, 30.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/hadopi-dans-le-mur-en-klaxonnant Hadopi (S2E02): politics first, Hadopi after (only in French, 30.04.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12795-Hadopi-S2E02-la-politique-d-abord-l-… Hadopi (S2E01): the majority shows its muscles to the opposition (only in French, 29.04.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12794-Hadopi-S2E01-la-majorite-montre-ses-… France reintroduces three-strikes law, clash with EU likely (29.04.2009) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/france-reintroduces-three-s… FDN and Libres Acchs Appeal to manifest against Hadopi (only in French, 28.04.2009) http://www.fdn.fr/ Hadopi: the vote of the draft law reported till Tuesday 12 May (only in French, 5.05.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12830-Hadopi-le-vote-du-projet-de-loi-repo… Hadopi: the vote reported by a week (only in French, 5.05.2009) http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/05/05/01002-20090505ARTFIG00423-hadop… EDRIgram: Three strikes law rejected by the French deputies (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/3-strikes-france-rejects ============================================================ 5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act ============================================================ In response to a complaint filed by Privacy International, the UK Data Protection Authority, Information Commissioner's Office, found Google's Street View service clear of any breach of the Data Protection Act, as revealed in a public statement on 23 April 2009. After the service was introduced in UK on 20 March 2009, Privacy International filed a complaint against Google arguing that the company needed the consent of the communities it was photographing, before setting up Street View system. Also, on 3 April the residents of Broughton, Buckinghamshire, made a barricade to prevent the Google car from entering their village because they considered that images presented by Street View could easily be used by burglers, thus facilitating their actions. Privacy International complained by the fact that Google had not performed safeguards to the technology to the extent promised and that the service had created numerous instances of embarrassment and distress for citizens. "We also believe that the technology has created substantial threat to a number of individuals and that the extent of intrusion into the homes of some complainants is unlawful. In such cases, Google should have acquired consent from individuals before images were captured," said the complaint. The ICO ruled against Privacy International's action. "It is important to highlight that putting images of people on Google Street View is very unlikely to formally breach the Data Protection Act," stated David Evans, the Senior Data Protection Practice Manager of the ICO adding: "Watch the TV news any day this week and you will see people walking past reporters in the street. Some football fans' faces will be captured on Match of the Day and local news programmes this weekend - without their consent, but perfectly legally." While acknowledging having received numerous complaints from people who have found their image on Google Street View, ICO considers however that the removal of an entire service would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment". The ICO has expressed satisfaction for Google having put in place adequate safeguards to minimise the risks to the individuals' privacy and safety and stated it would be watching closely so that Google should continue to respond quickly to complaints and deletion requests. "As a regulator we take a pragmatic and common sense approach. Any images of people's faces or number plates should be blurred. We emphasised the importance of blurring these images to protect people's privacy and limit privacy intrusion. Google must respond quickly to deletion requests and complaints, as it is doing at the moment. We will be watching closely to make sure this continues to be achieved in practice," said Evans. Privacy International had a very strong reaction to ICO's ruling. Its director Simon Davies declared for The Times that ICO "has entirely misrepresented Privacy International's concerns and complaint. We never sought the shutdown of Google Street View, as this ruling implies. We wanted to get Google to focus on the technological solutions and to get the commissioner to uphold the principles behind the law. Instead, he has sacrificed principles for pragmatism, an approach we believe has already been responsible for many of the privacy invasions in Britain." Davis considers there are dysfunctions in the Commission's handling complaints and technological advice would be necessary. Therefore, Privacy International is "for the creation of a technological advice office, and for greater rigour to be applied to the ICO's relations with companies and government." Davis also expects a different reaction from Christopher Graham, director general of the Advertising Standards Authority, who is expected to become the next UK Information Commissioner after Richard Thomas, the present ICO, retires on 30 June. "We challenge the incoming commissioner to find the courage to defend the legal principle of privacy and thus restore public trust in his office," he said. Street View ruling angers privacy campaigners (23.04.2009) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article61… Google wins battle with British weather to launch Street View in UK (20.03.2009) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5938017.ece PI files complaint about Google Street View (23.03.2009) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564039 Privacy International slams ICO ruling on Google Street View (24.04.2009) http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/04/24/235779/privacy-internatio… PI calls for review of UK privacy regulator following series of failed judgements (23.04.2009) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564402 EDRIgram: Privacy complaints related to Google's Street View (16.07.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.14/privacy-street-view ============================================================ 6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database ============================================================ A coallition of Human rights groups in UK has launched "Reclaim your DNA" website that helps innocent people contact the police to seek destruction of their DNA and database records. Five months after the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case Marper vs UK, no bill has been introduced in the Parliament to deal with this situation. However, in a recent statement, the UK home secretary Jacqui Smith said that the plans for destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent people stored by the Police would be published soon. The website "Reclaim your DNA" was launched on 27 April 2009 by several human rights groups in UK: GeneWatch UK, NO2ID, Black Mental Health UK, ARCH and EDRi-member Open Rights Group. Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, said: "If Scotland can remove innocent people from the DNA database, why can't this happen everywhere? It's time for people in the rest of Britain to demand their rights". GeneWatch has already warned that the health and drug companies will want access to the samples in order to create profiles to predict who is genetically susceptible to different illnesses and diseases. The website explains the procedure of deleting the DNA from the National DNA Database in case you haven't been convicted. It is estimated that at least 800 000 people are in this situation. The coalition presents the arguments for such an action: "Your computer record on the National DNA database can be used to trace you or your relatives. A sample of your DNA, containing your personal genetic information, will also be stored by one of the commercial laboratories that do work for the police. Your DNA sample contains some private information about your health." "We have human rights: we need to exercise them if we want to successfully defend them. The digital age means data is constantly easier to collect, store, and analyse, so when government goes too far, it is vital citizens act to defend their right to privacy" points Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group making reference also to the European Court of Human Rights decision that considered it is illegal for the government to keep all this personal information belonging to innocent people. The UK government stalled for nearly 5 months and initial plans seamed to try not to implement directly the judgement. But a statement from the UK home secretary Jacqui Smith insisted on 3 May 2009 that the plans would be presented this week and will also include the destruction of all physical samples, such as mouth swabs, hair and blood. It is estimated that a consultation paper would be released by the UK government to detail all the actions to deal with the destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent people. But the civil rights groups remain cautious on the decision. Simon Davies from Privacy International: "The DNA database is already too big.We would argue that the samples of anyone convicted of even minor offences should be removed." Reclaim your DNA ! http://reclaimyourdna.org/ The UK Police National DNA Database http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478 GeneWatch PR: Innocent urged to reclaim their DNA (27.04.2009) http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=563486&als[itemid]=564430 Step-by-step guide to reclaim your DNA (27.04.2009) http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/reclaim_your_dna_launch.html Jacqui Smith says DNA database profiles of 800,000 innocent people will be axed (3.05.2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/03/police-dna-database-jacqui-s… EDRi-gram:ECHR decided against the UK DNA Database (17.12.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.24/echr-marper-case-dna-uk ============================================================ 7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting ============================================================ The central issues in the third meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) seemed to be the creation of centralized databases to collect traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, genetic material and public domain material - and to close the digital divide between (post-)industrialized nations and economies in transition, developing countries (DCs) and the least developed countries (LDCs). Because Public Domain (PD) is decidedly different in different countries, it was proposed that a study on what does PD entail in different countries be undertaken by WIPO. From this study, a database should be created for the use of different actors that need to know what actually belongs to PD. Another central concern expressed by DCs and LDCs during the meeting was that PD should not only be mapped and preserved, but also enriched when possible. On the other hand, DCs and LDCs were worried that traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge and genetic material would be presumed to automatically belong to PD. Although direct concerns were not mentioned with all three areas, it was apparent that with the first, the worry was the westernization of traditional music, texts, behavior patterns etc. and with the second, that traditional knowledge about herbs and medicines as well as treatments would be enclosed by western multinational corporations without benefit to the local tribes and people who actually found them (CDIP/3/3, Recommendation 20) A clear tension between (post-) industrialized countries and DCs, LDCs and economies in transition was appearant. The latter often promoted to each other innovative and situational suggestions taking multiple views into account. The industrialized countries' representatives, more often than not, attempted to preserve the status quo, although as exceptions to this rule Japan and the Republic of South Korea must be mentioned. Japan had innovative ideas on E-SPEED database from which the member states, their patent and registering officials and stakeholders could observe various kinds of cases and how Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in different countries are handled (CDIP/3/8). Republic of Korea suggested doing a study in Fair Trade practices in different market areas - how to strengthen these and make them more widely used and available (CDIP/3/7). Some industrialized countries representatives expressed doubt on whether these proposals would be feasible in this economical environment, but, of course, this was also met with some skepticism by DCs and LDCs. After all, the kinds of economic problems western countries suffer from are in no way comparable of the normal situation DCs and LDCs face. Most EU and Group B representatives seemed satisfied with the fairly few comments made by the Czech Republic (in the name of EC and its 27 member states) and Germany. These representatives mainly commented on certain technical issues in the proposed projects execution, whereas the US representative tended to be more vocal and a stronger proponent of the status quo by more often than not referring to practices which would slow and hinder the proposed changes to the projects. As an interesting side topic, the one time the UK representative used an intervention, he mentioned (freely quoting) that as he was representing the UK population as a whole, also Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) constituency not just the government and rights holders, therefore the need for NGO interventions was not all that necessary. Let us hope that the UK delegate really does represent all the stakeholders in UK, although it remains unclear when these stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard by this representative in relation to WIPO CDIP. NGOs, DCs and LDCs were all worried specifically about the end of the projects - would the projects carry on after the funding for them by WIPO ended? If a project for setting up a center for certain IPR policy lasted 5 years, would it actually be run after this? What would happen to the hardware bought? It would at that stage be old and in need of replacement, at least some of the personnel trained would be offered work elsewhere both during and after the project ended and the state would not necessarily have the funds to keep the project going on their own. Worries were also presented on the transparency and wider use of WIPO prepared material. Even though a large part of it is available, either for free or at a reasonable price, if there is no infrastructure in place to facilitate the use, it doesn't mean much. The meeting was a positive experience compared to previous CDIP meetings from the point of view of NGOs. The representatives of NGOs were offered far more possibilities to comment on the items at the agenda than in previous meetings. Especially The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) did a lot of work for this to happen. The representative for CIEL talked with various member states representatives, the chair and the secretariat - with good results. NGOs had their traditional possibility to offer views and point out specifically important topics during the opening session, but the chair also attended the NGO meeting Wednesday morning. After that meeting, he offered the NGOs a possibility to give short statements both during Thursday and Friday. The first time this possibility was offered, only Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) were able to use this to their advantage. During Friday, the NGOs were more prepared for this possibility and more of them, and in more depth towards the topics under handling, were able to use the possibility and various short comments were heard. During Monday's opening statements, Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net) presented their concerns about libraries using electronic materials in DCs and LDCs . There are problems with this even in industrialized nations, thus they were concerned that in states with less developed practices this would especially cause lots of problems. As an example, the use of orphan works is troublesome even in the industrialized countries: how to handle potential payments if the rights holders are found, how to find out whether the rights holder is known when concentrated databases of e.g. copyright holders do not exist, etc. Licensing practices are also unclear in many DCs and LDCs, and often do not offer any possibilities for libraries to offer electronic materials to be loaned outside specific contracts (see especially CDIP/3/5 and CDIP/3/INF/2). During Thursday, FSFE brought to attention the advantages free software and open standards would offer in many situations. The free software and open standards advantages (e.g. possibility to translate software instead of relying on the good will of the software producers) enable more democratic innovation models than traditional propietary software, thus allowing developing countries to reap considerable benefits from using free software and relying on open standards. CIEL was instrumental in getting the possibility for the NGOs to be active during the Friday session. The CIEL representative saw it essential that the databases containing technical information on IPRs (see e.g. CDIP/3/INF/2, Annex II, Recommendation 5) should include model solutions. If possible, they should also be updated in real time instead of in batches. All surveys and studies ought to be based on empirical studies and statistical analysis performed by independent researchers rather than on rights holder associations' or purely theoretical ones, which often seems to be the case. Finally, the results from these studies and surveys should be available to all, not just WIPO member states. On top of what was presented in the official meetings, the political play in the corridors of power were interesting to follow. Who eats lunch with whom, what was said, but especially what was not said, what kinds of presuppositions were brought to discussions depending on the member state or group of the representative. The decision making cannot be considered open, transparent and democratic, even in good will, but progress towards more open and enabling discussions can be, none the less, seen. Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) : Third Session http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17382 Center for International Environmental Law http://www.ciel.org/ EFF http://www.eff.org/ Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/ Electronic Information for Libraries http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/home FSF Europe http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/ (contribution by Kai K. Kimppa - Lecturer, Information Systems, University of Turku - Finland) ============================================================ 8. Recommended Action ============================================================ The European Commission has launched a new online tool offering practical advice on the digital rights consumers have under EU law http://ec.europa.eu/eyouguide ============================================================ 9. Recommended Reading ============================================================ European Parliament study: A Review of the increased use of CCTV and video-surveillance for crime prevention purposes in Europe by Clive Norris http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/ep-study-norris-cctv-video-surveill… ============================================================ 10. Agenda ============================================================ 11 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium GigaNet is organizing the 2nd international academic workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction. http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse 13-14 May 2009 Uppsala, Sweden Mashing-up Culture: The Rise of User-generated Content http://www.counter2010.org/workshop_call 19-20 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium Personal data - more use, more protection? http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/news_events_en.htm#dp_conferen… 22-23 May 2009, Florence, Italy E-privacy: Towards total control http://e-privacy.winstonsmith.info/ 23 May 2009, Florence, Italy Big Brother Award Italia 2009 http://bba.winstonsmith.info/ 24-28 May 2009, Venice, Italy ICIMP 2009, The Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICIMP09.html 1-4 June 2009, Washington, DC, USA Computers Freedom and Privacy 2009 http://www.cfp2009.org/ 5 June 2009, London, UK The Second Multidisciplinary Workshop on Identity in the Information Society (IDIS 09): "Identity and the Impact of Technology" http://is2.lse.ac.uk/idis/2009/ 28-30 June 2009, Torino, Italy COMMUNIA Conference 2009: Global Science & Economics of Knowledge-Sharing Institutions http://www.communia-project.eu/conf2009 2-3 July 2009, Padova, Italy 3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/floss09.html 13-16 August 2009, Vierhouten, The Netherlands Hacking at Random http://www.har2009.org/ 23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA General Conference and Council: "Libraries create futures: Building on cultural heritage" http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla75/index.htm 10-12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam Section: Protest Politics Panel: The Contentious Politics of Intellectual Property http://www.ecpr.org.uk/potsdam/default.asp 16-18 September 2009, Crete, Greece World Summit on the Knowledge Society WSKS 2009 http://www.open-knowledge-society.org/ 17-18 September 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands Gikii, A Workshop on Law, Technology and Popular Culture Institute for Information Law (IViR) - University of Amsterdam Call for papers by 1 July 2009 http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2009.asp 21-23 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey eChallenges 2009 http://www.echallenges.org/e2009/default.asp 24-25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria 3rd European Privacy Open Space http://www.privacyos.eu 25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria Austrian Big Brother Awards Deadline for nominations: 21 September 2009 http://www.bigbrotherawards.at/ 16 October 2009, Bielefeld, Germany 10th German Big Brother Awards Deadline for nominations: 15 July 2009 http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/ 15-18 November 2009, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt UN Internet Governance Forum http://www.intgovforum.org/ ============================================================ 11. About ============================================================ EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 29 members based or with offices in 18 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

[IP] more on The Shadow Internet
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

------ Forwarded Message From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder(a)Opus1.COM> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:18:55 -0700 To: <dave(a)farber.net> Cc: Ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com>, <dpaull(a)svpal.org> Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Shadow Internet > Is it really possible that the government is unable to identify > the topsites and find out which servers connect to them? It's harder than you might think. Let's say you have some person who you think is A Bad Guy. If they're a US person, and you're USG, then you can probably get their ISP to let you tap their wires. After you go to a judge. OK, so that's fine, except that everything they do is encrypted. We can't decrypt that (wrong part of the USG), but fortunately the IP address is not encrypted. So that leads us off to some OTHER ISP. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the ISP is in the US. Now USG treks over to that ISP and says "we want to peek." The ISP says "no," of course, so USG goes back to Judge and gets a warrant and ISP (if you're lucky) suddenly becomes cooperative. Except that the server is one of ten thousand piece-o-junk Linux boxes that some hosting company stuck in the data center which they sell web sites off at $2.50/month and so the best thing the ISP can do is point you at the box and disclose who is paying the bill. OK, go back to the judge, go back to the hosting company that owns the boxes and say "show us." The hosting company says, "that system is being rented by a light bulb distributor out of Reno." (I'm putting them in the US to make things easier, OK?) The hosting company passes over the passwords, the USG logs in (MAYBE or maybe not) and assuming that they don't screw it up (MAYBE or maybe not) they discover that the light bulb distributor has no idea what the hell is going on except that they used to pay $2.50 a month and now they're about to get a $1300 bandwidth bill, which they're going to take out of their system administrator's salary for using 'p4ssword' as the password. Anyway, enough of this easy stuff: now the trail gets interesting---the logs show that the connections to this box come from Canada. No, let's make it Korea. So what is Mr. G-man going to do? Yeah, he'll send off a couple of email messages which will either (a) get ignored or (b) get response telling him to get a Korean search warrant. And then it stops, because Mr. G-man ain't got no Korean judge and he ain't got no budget to go over to Korea and plead his case. But let's say that he does. By this time, the trail is so cold that the logs are gone (if there were any logs in the first place, which there generally are not), and now he's got to go back to Step 1, or maybe Step 2 or Step 3 but this time he's got to find a German judge or an Italian judge and so on and so on... Now, if the money were REALLY big and the problem were REALLY aggravating and this was the "once a year case that we want to send out press releases on," maybe he'd get some budget to deal with this. But they seem to do this about once a year, maybe twice if there's an election. Fundamentally, though, without someone driving the investigation via major powerful and highly funded friends in Washington, it's not going to happen. The existence of large piles of bandwidth concentrated in very large rooms which have thousands of poorly protected servers in them across at least 5 continents means that without really trying very hard the folks who want to keep things a secret are able to do that, simply by being mobile, IP-wise, finding new systems to hack into (trivial), and keeping redundant piles of data around. With a very small amount of care, you could hide your steps from all but the best funded and most persistent of investigators. And what might be interesting to Wired and its readers probably doesn't match the drugs-and-terrorism program at the Dep't of Justice. I've got people ONE hop away from me who WANT to cooperate but cannot produce the necessary logs to even point at who the bad guys are that are breaking into their machines. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- 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> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

BBC News: ID cards are of 'limited value'
by Bob Rosenberg 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Dave Perhaps of interest to IP. Bob BBC NEWS ID cards are of 'limited value' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4659228.stm ID cards would be of "limited value" against terror and would not have prevented the London attacks in July, says the reviewer of anti-terror laws. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile said he had changed his mind on identity cards, which he had previously backed. "I can't think of many terrorist incidents, in fact I can think of very few... that ID cards would have brought to an earlier end," he told GMTV. The bill introducing the ID cards plan is currently going through Parliament. It recently suffered two defeats in the Lords, with peers wanting an entirely voluntary scheme, and ministers wanting people applying for new passports and driving licences to be obliged to go on the ID card register. "ID cards could be of some value in the fight against terrorism but they are probably of quite limited value," Lord Carlile told GMTV's Sunday programme. Civil liberties fear "They would be an advantage but that advantage has to be judged against the disadvantages which Parliament may see in ID cards. "I certainly don't think the absence of ID cards could possibly have any connection with the events of last July. "There may be a gain from the security viewpoint in the curtailment of civil liberties, but Parliament has to be the judge about whether the proportion is right." He added: "I think Parliament is so unenthusiastic about the ID cards that, in reality, this is a debate rather than a reality. "I don't think they will get through a compulsory ID card system immediately." 'Rushed' debate Lord Carlile also said he thought the Terror Bill, debated by the Lords this month, had been "rushed". "I don't think there was a need to rush through the current terror legislation. I would have preferred it to go to a scrutiny committee. "I think it's led to certain issues being muddled by political debate rather than analysis." Ministers say ID cards are needed to fight identity fraud and illegal immigration. The plans were narrowly backed by the Commons last year but the House of Lords tabled a number of amendments aimed at making sure people have a choice. Conservative leader David Cameron has called ID cards a "monument to the failure of big government". His comments followed a report which estimated they would cost ?14.5bn - which the government denies. The government is likely to try to overturn the Lords defeats when the ID cards bill returns to the Commons. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4659228.stm Published: 2006/01/29 10:54:29 GMT ? BBC MMVI ------------------------------------- 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] BBC News: ID cards are of 'limited value'
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 7.9, 6 May 2009
by EDRI-gram newsletter 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

============================================================ EDRi-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 7.9, 6 May 2009 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again 2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest 3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading 4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt 5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act 6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database 7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting 8. Recommended Action 9. Recommended Reading 10. Agenda 11. About ============================================================ 1. European Parliament votes against the 3 strikes. Again ============================================================ Today, 6 May 2009, in the second reading of the Telecom Package, the European Parliament (EP) voted again for the initial amendment 138, with an overwhelming majority of 407 votes for and just 57 against the proposal. However, on this same occasion, the EP rejected the amendments that would make "network neutrality" principles mandatory. Although initially MEP Catherine Trautmann's report included the original amendment 138/46 as adopted in the first reading by the European Parliament, after the opaque negotiations with the EU Council from the past 2 weeks this amendment had been changed in a weaker version. The initial text "without a prior ruling of the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights" was replaced by "and the right to a judgement by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law and acting in respect of due process in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR." Although the new French authority (called Hadopi) that could be established by the three strikes French draft law can't be considered a "tribunal established by art 6 of ECHR", the text left room to more fuzzy interpretations by removing the wording "prior ruling". Thus the compromise text could be interpreted that such an authority could take a decision of cutting one's access to Internet, but one would be allowed to go to court to challenge this decision. But the EP decided that the initial amendment 138 needed to be supported once again. The battle was not easy, though. MEP Rebecca Harms insisted in the plenary for the change in the voting list and for having the original amendment 138 first . Her position was supported by MEP Alexander Alvaro and disagreed by the Rapporteur MEP Catherine Trautmann. The Chairwomen Diana Wallis agreed to go on first with the vote on the Amendment 138. 407 votes from MEPs supported the amendment, thus saying NO to 3 strikes in Europe. Again. Also the report of Malcolm Harbour (PPE/ED - UK) changed the initial amendment 166 adopted in the first reading by the EP that established a clear principle of the Internet neutrality. Now the main protection left is customer information through contracts, but consumer and competition law cannot regulate fundamental rights. The new compromise with the Council that includes the text "limitations on access to and/or use of services and applications" is far from the initial amendment 166 that was clear: "Member States shall ensure that any restrictions on the rights of users to access content, services and applications, if such restrictions are necessary, are implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness" In fact, Mr. Harbour, in an interview published one day before the final vote on the European Parliament website, described as "pure fantasy" the statement that new rules would allow conditional access. "There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that says anything about that," he claimed. But Mr Harbour was contradicting himself just a couple of weeks earlier when he declared publicly that there were service limitations in his own report: "On the question of network neutrality, so called, which I think has been vastly over-inflated in all of this debate, the Commission has quite rightly identified the fact that there is a potential - a potential - for operators to use differing quality of service provision in a discriminatory way, for example, by giving a higher capacity or better service quality to their own services as opposed to those of competitors. The commission made a proposal, the council amended that and we agreed. But the fact remains that any other service limitations which are anti-competitive, and they could certainly include restrictions on access to competitive services like voice over IP, have and can be dealt with by the regulators under the existing framework of competition and access regulation. And that is clear. But what is fundamental is that customer needs to know if there are service limitations and customers may wish to buy a package with service limitations if it is cheaper...There is nothing illegal about service limitations, provided they are not anti-competitive..." The initial amendments voted in the first reading by the EP, were back on the European Parliament agenda under the name of Citizens Rights Amendments proposed by Eva-Britt Svensson on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group together with other support from other MEPs. But besides the amendment that re-instated article 138, all the other citizen rights amendments were rejected by the plenary of the EP. Thus, the Harbour report was adopted and the Trautmann report was rejected. The discussions with the Council will continue and should lead to a third reading at least for the Trautmann Report. But at the same time, there are little chances for something to be changed in relation with the articles on "network neutrality", that would become part of the directive. "Internet has to be free, but not regulation free" - Harbour on telecoms package (5.05.2009) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/welcome/headlines.htm Ask MEPs to adopt Citizens' Rights Amendments on 6 May (5.05.2009) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ Citizens rights amendements http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Citizens%27_Rights_Amendments EDRi-gram: European Parliament ITRE committee votes against the 3 strikes (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/amendment-138-adopted-itre Telecoms Package: When rapporteurs betray EU citizens. (30.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-when-rapporteurs-betray-eu-… Agreement on a new version of amendment 46/138 in Brussels. The European parliament accepted a weaker text. (29.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/new-version-of-amendment-138-46-agreed-weake… Telecoms Package - a licence to chill (4.05.2009) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Item… Amendment 138/46 adopted again. Internet is a fundamental right in Europe (6.05.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-46-adopted-again European Parliament rejects Telecoms Package (6.05.2009) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=338&Item… ============================================================ 2. The Pirate Bay asks for retrial claiming conflict of interest ============================================================ According to Sweden's national radio station, Thomas Norstrvm, the judge in The Pirate Bay trial was a member of pro-copyright groups just like several of the main figures in The Pirate Bay case representing the entertaiment industry or prosecution side. Apparently, Norstrvm is a member of the Swedish Copyright Association (Svenska fvreningen fvr upphovsrdtt), together with Henrik Pontin, Peter Danowsky and Monique Wadsted, three representatives of the entertainment industry in the case against The Pirate Bay. The judge also belongs to the board of the Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (Svenska fvreningen fvr industriellt rdttsskydd), which is lobbying for tougher copyright laws. Peter Althin, Peter Sunde's lawyer, stated on 23 April that he intended to ask for a retrial. "I will point that out in my appeal, then the court of appeal will decide if the district court decision should be set aside and the case revisited." Judge Norstrvm denied the fact that his involvement with the two pro-copyright organisations constituted a "conflict of interest" in The Pirate Bay trial as the verdict against the site was decided by both the judge and jury. Former Chief Prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem considers that the situation will be harmful for the image of the Swedish courts internationally as well as at the domestic level casting doubt over the judicial neutrality and safety of the Swedish judicial system. Rickard Falkvinge, Pirate Party chairman, has called for the annulment of the verdict considering it is a case of "corruption and miscarriage of justice" adding that "the copyright lobby has really managed to bring corruption to Sweden." On 18 April, the Pirate Party organized demonstrations against the decision of the court in The Pirate Bay case, in several cities of Sweden, with more than 1 000 supporters demonstrating in Stockholm for The Pirate Bay defendants and file sharing. The decision of the court has also led to a significant increase of the Pirate Party membership. Pirate Bay judge and pro-copyright lobbyist accused of bias (23.04.2009) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/23/pirate_bay_judge_accused_of_bias/ Pirate Bay lawyer calls for retrial (23.04.2009) http://www.thelocal.se/19028/20090423/ Judge In Pirate Bay Trial Biased (23.04.2009) http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209143&cid=27686249 Swedes demonstrate in support of Pirate Bay (19.04.2009) http://www.thelocal.se/18954/20090419/ Pirate Bay judge denies 'conflict of interest' (23.04.2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/23/pirate-bay-judge EDRI-gram: The Pirate Bay founders considered guilty by the first Swedish court (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/the-pirate-bay-court-decision ============================================================ 3. EP passes performers' copyright term extension directive in first reading ============================================================ Although largely opposed by some EU Member States in the Council, criticized by the consumers' organizations and strongly opposed by 4 out of the 7 main political groups (ALDE, GREENS/EFA, NGL, IND/ DEM) in the European Parliament (EP), the directive on performers copyright term extension was passed by the MEPs in the first reading on 23 April 2009. Besides the four groups, there were other national delegations and key MEPs who joined the fight to reject the directive, but the final vote was 317 in favour, 178 against, 37 abstentions. The report by Irish MEP Brian Crowley proposed the extension of the term from 50 to 70 years for performers and recording companies, while the initial proposal of the European Commission was to extend the term up to 95 years. The extension by 20 years seems to be a compromise to acknowledge the disapproval of some of the Member States. "The current differences in term of protection, particularly between Europe and the US, cause legal uncertainty and piracy, especially in the digital environment, where there are no boundaries," said Brian Crowley who added: "The extended term would also benefit the record producers. It would generate additional revenue from the sale of records in shops and on the Internet." The new text provides a dedicated fund for session musicians having given up their rights when signing contracts for their performances. The fund is to be financed by contributions from producers who would be obliged to put aside for this at least 20% of the revenues resulted from the extended term, at least once a year. The collective societies are given the right to manage the additional remuneration. A key amendment to ensure benefits accrued only to performers was, unfortunately, rejected. The initial text has also been modified so as to prevent previous contract terms to deduct money from the additional revenues for performers. Also, an approved amendment allows performers to renegotiate contracts concluded before the entry into force of this legislation. "Use it or lose it" clause says that in case the producers do not make the recording available to the public within a year after the 50-year period has ended, their rights expire and performers can be transferred the rights for the respective recording. MEPs ask the Commission to launch by January 2010 an impact assessment of the situation in the European audiovisual sector in order to decide whether a similar copyright extension would be beneficial for that area as well. Member States will have two years to transpose the new legislation. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, Director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) criticized the Commission for not having taken into consideration the finding of the two commissioned studies carried out by IViR on the extension of the copyright term. In an open letter addressed in August 2008, he accused the Commission of "wilfully ignoring scientific analysis and evidence". Monique Goyens, director-general of European consumer organisation BEUC, has also criticised the proposed legislation summarising the present situation as follows: "The technology is of the 21st century, the legislation is of the 19th century and the right holder organisations are of the Middle Age." The directive is now being sent to the EU Council of Ministers for first reading, where it is currently blocked by several member states. Parliament buckles: copyright extension goes through to Council of Ministers (23.04.2009) http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/04/23/parliament-buckles-copyright-exte… European Parliament backs 70-year copyright term for sound recordings (27.04.2009) http://www.out-law.com/page-9973 Music copyright still divisive, despite MEPs' backing (29.04.2009) http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/music-copyright-divisive-despite-meps… Music copyright to be extended to 70 years for performers (23.04.2009) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/058-54192-111-04-1… IViR Open Letter to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission (28.08.2008) http://www.ivir.nl/news/Open_Letter_EC.pdf EDRI-gram: Extended copyright term for sound recordings pushed back (8.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.7/extended-copyright-no ============================================================ 4. Three strikes law in France - Second attempt ============================================================ The Hadopi (or three strikes) law saga continues with the second reading of the draft law in the French National Assembly having started on 29 April 2009. After the unexpected rejection of the text in the lower chamber on 9 April 2009, the majority came this time decided to pass the law no matter what. The pressure was mainly due to the present discussion in the European Parliament for the adoption of the Telecom Package which would put the French law in a critical position. The French Government has tried its best to push the three strikes law to be voted by the National Assembly as fast as possible. "We will be careful so that you don't go to sleep as we are going to vote this very evening" said deputy Jean-Frangois Copi on 29 April. The entire fight around the draft law seems to have turned into a political debate. This time, present in a large number, the majority members succeeded in rejecting the opposition's proposal to send back the text to the mixed joint commission (commission mixte paritaire). Frank Riester, rapporteur of the text, asked for the rejection of "any amendment that puts into question the compromise of the mixed joint commission" that is the toughest form of the text, thus shown the intention of the majority to pass the draft law as it was before its rejection on 9 April. Fears appear to have existed that the government might make use of the unique (or so called blocked) vote which would have given thepossibility of voting the entire text as a single item instead of voting every single amendment. However, this did not happen and the large number of amendments, especially introduced by the opposition, made it impossible for the Assembly to finalise the discussions and vote by the evening of 5 May. That morning, there were still 160 amendments to examine out of the total of 214. The vote was therefore postponed till 12 Ma, a decision which is definitely disappointing for Nicolas Sarkozy who wanted to get the vote on the law before a final decision of the EP on the Telecom Package. According to Jirimie Zimmermann, spokesman for La Quadrature du Net, "The HADOPI law will be undoubtedly voted by a blocked majority, on order. But it will remain a political failure for the government and a democratic as well as technological aberration. HADOPI is a warning signal inviting everybody to rise against the harmful consequences of a regulation sacrificing the citizens and the Internet to the out-of-date interests of some". In the mean time, the opposition movements continue. Sci-fi writer Roland Wagnerhas has organised a "Sci-fi against HADOPI" group while an anti-Hadopi march was organised on 1 May 2009 by several organisations at the initiative of Libre Acchs and the French Data Network in Paris. Also, an important initiative has been taken by consumers groups including La Quadrature du Net and UFC Que Choisir who have launched the project Criation Public Internet (Internet Public Creation), a project meant to find new business models and solutions for important issues related to cultural creation and artists' income. After the vote in the National Assembly, the Hadopi text will go back to the Senate for a new reading and in the unlikely case the text of the Senate differs from the one voted by the Assembly, the last word will belong to the deputies. Hadopi: towards a unique vote? (only in French, 4.05.2009) http://www.ecrans.fr/Hadopi-vers-un-vote-unique,7054.html HADOPI: in the wall, honking (only in French, 30.04.2009) http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/hadopi-dans-le-mur-en-klaxonnant Hadopi (S2E02): politics first, Hadopi after (only in French, 30.04.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12795-Hadopi-S2E02-la-politique-d-abord-l-… Hadopi (S2E01): the majority shows its muscles to the opposition (only in French, 29.04.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12794-Hadopi-S2E01-la-majorite-montre-ses-… France reintroduces three-strikes law, clash with EU likely (29.04.2009) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/france-reintroduces-three-s… FDN and Libres Acchs Appeal to manifest against Hadopi (only in French, 28.04.2009) http://www.fdn.fr/ Hadopi: the vote of the draft law reported till Tuesday 12 May (only in French, 5.05.2009) http://www.numerama.com/magazine/12830-Hadopi-le-vote-du-projet-de-loi-repo… Hadopi: the vote reported by a week (only in French, 5.05.2009) http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2009/05/05/01002-20090505ARTFIG00423-hadop… EDRIgram: Three strikes law rejected by the French deputies (22.04.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.8/3-strikes-france-rejects ============================================================ 5. UK: Google's Street View does not breach the Data Protection Act ============================================================ In response to a complaint filed by Privacy International, the UK Data Protection Authority, Information Commissioner's Office, found Google's Street View service clear of any breach of the Data Protection Act, as revealed in a public statement on 23 April 2009. After the service was introduced in UK on 20 March 2009, Privacy International filed a complaint against Google arguing that the company needed the consent of the communities it was photographing, before setting up Street View system. Also, on 3 April the residents of Broughton, Buckinghamshire, made a barricade to prevent the Google car from entering their village because they considered that images presented by Street View could easily be used by burglers, thus facilitating their actions. Privacy International complained by the fact that Google had not performed safeguards to the technology to the extent promised and that the service had created numerous instances of embarrassment and distress for citizens. "We also believe that the technology has created substantial threat to a number of individuals and that the extent of intrusion into the homes of some complainants is unlawful. In such cases, Google should have acquired consent from individuals before images were captured," said the complaint. The ICO ruled against Privacy International's action. "It is important to highlight that putting images of people on Google Street View is very unlikely to formally breach the Data Protection Act," stated David Evans, the Senior Data Protection Practice Manager of the ICO adding: "Watch the TV news any day this week and you will see people walking past reporters in the street. Some football fans' faces will be captured on Match of the Day and local news programmes this weekend - without their consent, but perfectly legally." While acknowledging having received numerous complaints from people who have found their image on Google Street View, ICO considers however that the removal of an entire service would be "disproportionate to the relatively small risk of privacy detriment". The ICO has expressed satisfaction for Google having put in place adequate safeguards to minimise the risks to the individuals' privacy and safety and stated it would be watching closely so that Google should continue to respond quickly to complaints and deletion requests. "As a regulator we take a pragmatic and common sense approach. Any images of people's faces or number plates should be blurred. We emphasised the importance of blurring these images to protect people's privacy and limit privacy intrusion. Google must respond quickly to deletion requests and complaints, as it is doing at the moment. We will be watching closely to make sure this continues to be achieved in practice," said Evans. Privacy International had a very strong reaction to ICO's ruling. Its director Simon Davies declared for The Times that ICO "has entirely misrepresented Privacy International's concerns and complaint. We never sought the shutdown of Google Street View, as this ruling implies. We wanted to get Google to focus on the technological solutions and to get the commissioner to uphold the principles behind the law. Instead, he has sacrificed principles for pragmatism, an approach we believe has already been responsible for many of the privacy invasions in Britain." Davis considers there are dysfunctions in the Commission's handling complaints and technological advice would be necessary. Therefore, Privacy International is "for the creation of a technological advice office, and for greater rigour to be applied to the ICO's relations with companies and government." Davis also expects a different reaction from Christopher Graham, director general of the Advertising Standards Authority, who is expected to become the next UK Information Commissioner after Richard Thomas, the present ICO, retires on 30 June. "We challenge the incoming commissioner to find the courage to defend the legal principle of privacy and thus restore public trust in his office," he said. Street View ruling angers privacy campaigners (23.04.2009) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article61… Google wins battle with British weather to launch Street View in UK (20.03.2009) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5938017.ece PI files complaint about Google Street View (23.03.2009) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564039 Privacy International slams ICO ruling on Google Street View (24.04.2009) http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/04/24/235779/privacy-internatio… PI calls for review of UK privacy regulator following series of failed judgements (23.04.2009) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-564402 EDRIgram: Privacy complaints related to Google's Street View (16.07.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.14/privacy-street-view ============================================================ 6. Reclaim your DNA from the UK database ============================================================ A coallition of Human rights groups in UK has launched "Reclaim your DNA" website that helps innocent people contact the police to seek destruction of their DNA and database records. Five months after the European Court of Human Rights decision in the case Marper vs UK, no bill has been introduced in the Parliament to deal with this situation. However, in a recent statement, the UK home secretary Jacqui Smith said that the plans for destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent people stored by the Police would be published soon. The website "Reclaim your DNA" was launched on 27 April 2009 by several human rights groups in UK: GeneWatch UK, NO2ID, Black Mental Health UK, ARCH and EDRi-member Open Rights Group. Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK, said: "If Scotland can remove innocent people from the DNA database, why can't this happen everywhere? It's time for people in the rest of Britain to demand their rights". GeneWatch has already warned that the health and drug companies will want access to the samples in order to create profiles to predict who is genetically susceptible to different illnesses and diseases. The website explains the procedure of deleting the DNA from the National DNA Database in case you haven't been convicted. It is estimated that at least 800 000 people are in this situation. The coalition presents the arguments for such an action: "Your computer record on the National DNA database can be used to trace you or your relatives. A sample of your DNA, containing your personal genetic information, will also be stored by one of the commercial laboratories that do work for the police. Your DNA sample contains some private information about your health." "We have human rights: we need to exercise them if we want to successfully defend them. The digital age means data is constantly easier to collect, store, and analyse, so when government goes too far, it is vital citizens act to defend their right to privacy" points Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group making reference also to the European Court of Human Rights decision that considered it is illegal for the government to keep all this personal information belonging to innocent people. The UK government stalled for nearly 5 months and initial plans seamed to try not to implement directly the judgement. But a statement from the UK home secretary Jacqui Smith insisted on 3 May 2009 that the plans would be presented this week and will also include the destruction of all physical samples, such as mouth swabs, hair and blood. It is estimated that a consultation paper would be released by the UK government to detail all the actions to deal with the destruction of the DNA profiles of the innocent people. But the civil rights groups remain cautious on the decision. Simon Davies from Privacy International: "The DNA database is already too big.We would argue that the samples of anyone convicted of even minor offences should be removed." Reclaim your DNA ! http://reclaimyourdna.org/ The UK Police National DNA Database http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539478 GeneWatch PR: Innocent urged to reclaim their DNA (27.04.2009) http://www.genewatch.org/article.shtml?als[cid]=563486&als[itemid]=564430 Step-by-step guide to reclaim your DNA (27.04.2009) http://gizmonaut.net/blog/uk/reclaim_your_dna_launch.html Jacqui Smith says DNA database profiles of 800,000 innocent people will be axed (3.05.2009) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/03/police-dna-database-jacqui-s… EDRi-gram:ECHR decided against the UK DNA Database (17.12.2009) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.24/echr-marper-case-dna-uk ============================================================ 7. WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property: Third meeting ============================================================ The central issues in the third meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) seemed to be the creation of centralized databases to collect traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, genetic material and public domain material - and to close the digital divide between (post-)industrialized nations and economies in transition, developing countries (DCs) and the least developed countries (LDCs). Because Public Domain (PD) is decidedly different in different countries, it was proposed that a study on what does PD entail in different countries be undertaken by WIPO. From this study, a database should be created for the use of different actors that need to know what actually belongs to PD. Another central concern expressed by DCs and LDCs during the meeting was that PD should not only be mapped and preserved, but also enriched when possible. On the other hand, DCs and LDCs were worried that traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge and genetic material would be presumed to automatically belong to PD. Although direct concerns were not mentioned with all three areas, it was apparent that with the first, the worry was the westernization of traditional music, texts, behavior patterns etc. and with the second, that traditional knowledge about herbs and medicines as well as treatments would be enclosed by western multinational corporations without benefit to the local tribes and people who actually found them (CDIP/3/3, Recommendation 20) A clear tension between (post-) industrialized countries and DCs, LDCs and economies in transition was appearant. The latter often promoted to each other innovative and situational suggestions taking multiple views into account. The industrialized countries' representatives, more often than not, attempted to preserve the status quo, although as exceptions to this rule Japan and the Republic of South Korea must be mentioned. Japan had innovative ideas on E-SPEED database from which the member states, their patent and registering officials and stakeholders could observe various kinds of cases and how Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in different countries are handled (CDIP/3/8). Republic of Korea suggested doing a study in Fair Trade practices in different market areas - how to strengthen these and make them more widely used and available (CDIP/3/7). Some industrialized countries representatives expressed doubt on whether these proposals would be feasible in this economical environment, but, of course, this was also met with some skepticism by DCs and LDCs. After all, the kinds of economic problems western countries suffer from are in no way comparable of the normal situation DCs and LDCs face. Most EU and Group B representatives seemed satisfied with the fairly few comments made by the Czech Republic (in the name of EC and its 27 member states) and Germany. These representatives mainly commented on certain technical issues in the proposed projects execution, whereas the US representative tended to be more vocal and a stronger proponent of the status quo by more often than not referring to practices which would slow and hinder the proposed changes to the projects. As an interesting side topic, the one time the UK representative used an intervention, he mentioned (freely quoting) that as he was representing the UK population as a whole, also Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) constituency not just the government and rights holders, therefore the need for NGO interventions was not all that necessary. Let us hope that the UK delegate really does represent all the stakeholders in UK, although it remains unclear when these stakeholders have the opportunity to be heard by this representative in relation to WIPO CDIP. NGOs, DCs and LDCs were all worried specifically about the end of the projects - would the projects carry on after the funding for them by WIPO ended? If a project for setting up a center for certain IPR policy lasted 5 years, would it actually be run after this? What would happen to the hardware bought? It would at that stage be old and in need of replacement, at least some of the personnel trained would be offered work elsewhere both during and after the project ended and the state would not necessarily have the funds to keep the project going on their own. Worries were also presented on the transparency and wider use of WIPO prepared material. Even though a large part of it is available, either for free or at a reasonable price, if there is no infrastructure in place to facilitate the use, it doesn't mean much. The meeting was a positive experience compared to previous CDIP meetings from the point of view of NGOs. The representatives of NGOs were offered far more possibilities to comment on the items at the agenda than in previous meetings. Especially The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) did a lot of work for this to happen. The representative for CIEL talked with various member states representatives, the chair and the secretariat - with good results. NGOs had their traditional possibility to offer views and point out specifically important topics during the opening session, but the chair also attended the NGO meeting Wednesday morning. After that meeting, he offered the NGOs a possibility to give short statements both during Thursday and Friday. The first time this possibility was offered, only Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) were able to use this to their advantage. During Friday, the NGOs were more prepared for this possibility and more of them, and in more depth towards the topics under handling, were able to use the possibility and various short comments were heard. During Monday's opening statements, Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) and Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL.net) presented their concerns about libraries using electronic materials in DCs and LDCs . There are problems with this even in industrialized nations, thus they were concerned that in states with less developed practices this would especially cause lots of problems. As an example, the use of orphan works is troublesome even in the industrialized countries: how to handle potential payments if the rights holders are found, how to find out whether the rights holder is known when concentrated databases of e.g. copyright holders do not exist, etc. Licensing practices are also unclear in many DCs and LDCs, and often do not offer any possibilities for libraries to offer electronic materials to be loaned outside specific contracts (see especially CDIP/3/5 and CDIP/3/INF/2). During Thursday, FSFE brought to attention the advantages free software and open standards would offer in many situations. The free software and open standards advantages (e.g. possibility to translate software instead of relying on the good will of the software producers) enable more democratic innovation models than traditional propietary software, thus allowing developing countries to reap considerable benefits from using free software and relying on open standards. CIEL was instrumental in getting the possibility for the NGOs to be active during the Friday session. The CIEL representative saw it essential that the databases containing technical information on IPRs (see e.g. CDIP/3/INF/2, Annex II, Recommendation 5) should include model solutions. If possible, they should also be updated in real time instead of in batches. All surveys and studies ought to be based on empirical studies and statistical analysis performed by independent researchers rather than on rights holder associations' or purely theoretical ones, which often seems to be the case. Finally, the results from these studies and surveys should be available to all, not just WIPO member states. On top of what was presented in the official meetings, the political play in the corridors of power were interesting to follow. Who eats lunch with whom, what was said, but especially what was not said, what kinds of presuppositions were brought to discussions depending on the member state or group of the representative. The decision making cannot be considered open, transparent and democratic, even in good will, but progress towards more open and enabling discussions can be, none the less, seen. Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) : Third Session http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17382 Center for International Environmental Law http://www.ciel.org/ EFF http://www.eff.org/ Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) http://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/ Electronic Information for Libraries http://www.eifl.net/cps/sections/home FSF Europe http://fsfeurope.org/projects/wipo/ (contribution by Kai K. Kimppa - Lecturer, Information Systems, University of Turku - Finland) ============================================================ 8. Recommended Action ============================================================ The European Commission has launched a new online tool offering practical advice on the digital rights consumers have under EU law http://ec.europa.eu/eyouguide ============================================================ 9. Recommended Reading ============================================================ European Parliament study: A Review of the increased use of CCTV and video-surveillance for crime prevention purposes in Europe by Clive Norris http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/apr/ep-study-norris-cctv-video-surveill… ============================================================ 10. Agenda ============================================================ 11 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium GigaNet is organizing the 2nd international academic workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction. http://giganet.igloogroups.org/publiclibr/giganetcos/2009brusse 13-14 May 2009 Uppsala, Sweden Mashing-up Culture: The Rise of User-generated Content http://www.counter2010.org/workshop_call 19-20 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium Personal data - more use, more protection? http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/news_events_en.htm#dp_conferen… 22-23 May 2009, Florence, Italy E-privacy: Towards total control http://e-privacy.winstonsmith.info/ 23 May 2009, Florence, Italy Big Brother Award Italia 2009 http://bba.winstonsmith.info/ 24-28 May 2009, Venice, Italy ICIMP 2009, The Fourth International Conference on Internet Monitoring and Protection http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/ICIMP09.html 1-4 June 2009, Washington, DC, USA Computers Freedom and Privacy 2009 http://www.cfp2009.org/ 5 June 2009, London, UK The Second Multidisciplinary Workshop on Identity in the Information Society (IDIS 09): "Identity and the Impact of Technology" http://is2.lse.ac.uk/idis/2009/ 28-30 June 2009, Torino, Italy COMMUNIA Conference 2009: Global Science & Economics of Knowledge-Sharing Institutions http://www.communia-project.eu/conf2009 2-3 July 2009, Padova, Italy 3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/floss09.html 13-16 August 2009, Vierhouten, The Netherlands Hacking at Random http://www.har2009.org/ 23-27 August 2009, Milan, Italy World Library and Information Congress: 75th IFLA General Conference and Council: "Libraries create futures: Building on cultural heritage" http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla75/index.htm 10-12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam Section: Protest Politics Panel: The Contentious Politics of Intellectual Property http://www.ecpr.org.uk/potsdam/default.asp 16-18 September 2009, Crete, Greece World Summit on the Knowledge Society WSKS 2009 http://www.open-knowledge-society.org/ 17-18 September 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands Gikii, A Workshop on Law, Technology and Popular Culture Institute for Information Law (IViR) - University of Amsterdam Call for papers by 1 July 2009 http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2009.asp 21-23 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey eChallenges 2009 http://www.echallenges.org/e2009/default.asp 24-25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria 3rd European Privacy Open Space http://www.privacyos.eu 25 October 2009, Vienna, Austria Austrian Big Brother Awards Deadline for nominations: 21 September 2009 http://www.bigbrotherawards.at/ 16 October 2009, Bielefeld, Germany 10th German Big Brother Awards Deadline for nominations: 15 July 2009 http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/ 15-18 November 2009, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt UN Internet Governance Forum http://www.intgovforum.org/ ============================================================ 11. About ============================================================ EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 29 members based or with offices in 18 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

[tt] NYT: New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside
by Premise Checker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable By WILLIAM J. BROAD Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don't come out till officials say it's safe. The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far. But a problem for the Obama administration is how to spread the word without seeming alarmist about a subject that few politicians care to consider, let alone discuss. So officials are proceeding gingerly in a campaign to educate the public. "We have to get past the mental block that says it's too terrible to think about," W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. "We have to be ready to deal with it" and help people learn how to "best protect themselves." Officials say they are moving aggressively to conduct drills, prepare communication guides and raise awareness among emergency planners of how to educate the public. Over the years, Washington has sought to prevent nuclear terrorism and limit its harm, mainly by governmental means. It has spent tens of billions of dollars on everything from intelligence and securing nuclear materials to equipping local authorities with radiation detectors. The new wave is citizen preparedness. For people who survive the initial blast, the main advice is to fight the impulse to run and instead seek shelter from lethal radioactivity. Even a few hours of protection, officials say, can greatly increase survival rates. Administration officials argue that the cold war created an unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack. "It's more survivable than most people think," said an official deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The key is avoiding nuclear fallout." The administration is making that argument with state and local authorities and has started to do so with the general public as well. Its Citizen Corps Web site says a nuclear detonation is "potentially survivable for thousands, especially with adequate shelter and education." A color illustration shows which kinds of buildings and rooms offer the best protection from radiation. In June, the administration released to emergency officials around the nation an unclassified planning guide 130 pages long on how to respond to a nuclear attack. It stressed citizen education, before any attack. Without that knowledge, the guide added, "people will be more likely to follow the natural instinct to run from danger, potentially exposing themselves to fatal doses of radiation." Specialists outside of Washington are divided on the initiative. One group says the administration is overreacting to an atomic threat that is all but nonexistent. Peter Bergen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and New York University's Center on Law and Security, recently argued that the odds of any terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon are "near zero for the foreseeable future." But another school says that the potential consequences are so high that the administration is, if anything, being too timid. "There's no penetration of the message coming out of the federal government," said Irwin Redlener, a doctor and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. "It's deeply frustrating that we seem unable to bridge the gap between the new insights and using them to inform public policy." White House officials say they are aware of the issue's political delicacy but are nonetheless moving ahead briskly. The administration has sought "to enhance national resilience--to withstand disruption, adapt to change and rapidly recover," said Brian Kamoie, senior director for preparedness policy at the National Security Council. He added, "We're working hard to involve individuals in the effort so they become part of the team in terms of emergency management." A nuclear blast produces a blinding flash, burning heat and crushing wind. The fireball and mushroom cloud carry radioactive particles upward, and the wind sends them near and far. The government initially knew little about radioactive fallout. But in the 1950s, as the cold war intensified, scientists monitoring test explosions learned that the tiny particles throbbed with fission products--fragments of split atoms, many highly radioactive and potentially lethal. But after a burst of interest in fallout shelters, the public and even the government grew increasingly skeptical about civil defense as nuclear arsenals grew to hold thousands of warheads. In late 2001, a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, the director of central intelligence told President George W. Bush of a secret warning that Al Qaeda had hidden an atom bomb in New York City. The report turned out to be false. But atomic jitters soared. "History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act," Mr. Bush said in late 2002. In dozens of programs, his administration focused on prevention but also dealt with disaster response and the acquisition of items like radiation detectors. "Public education is key," Daniel J. Kaniewski, a security expert at George Washington University, said in an interview. "But it's easier for communities to buy equipment--and look for tech solutions-- because there's Homeland Security money and no shortage of contractors to supply the silver bullet." After Hurricane Katrina in 2005 revealed the poor state of disaster planning, public and private officials began to question national preparedness for atomic strikes. Some noted conflicting federal advice on whether survivors should seek shelter or try to evacuate. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5.5 million for studies on atomic disaster planning, noting that "cities have little guidance available to them." The Department of Homeland Security financed a multiagency modeling effort led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The scientists looked at Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other big cities, using computers to simulate details of the urban landscape and terrorist bombs. The results were revealing. For instance, the scientists found that a bomb's flash would blind many drivers, causing accidents and complicating evacuation. The big surprise was how taking shelter for as little as several hours made a huge difference in survival rates. "This has been a game changer," Brooke Buddemeier, a Livermore health physicist, told a Los Angeles conference. He showed a slide labeled "How Many Lives Can Sheltering Save?" If people in Los Angeles a mile or more from ground zero of an attack took no shelter, Mr. Buddemeier said, there would be 285,000 casualties from fallout in that region. Taking shelter in a place with minimal protection, like a car, would cut that figure to 125,000 deaths or injuries, he said. A shallow basement would further reduce it to 45,000 casualties. And the core of a big office building or an underground garage would provide the best shelter of all. "We'd have no significant exposures," Mr. Buddemeier told the conference, and thus virtually no casualties from fallout. On Jan. 16, 2009--four days before Mr. Bush left office--the White House issued a 92-page handbook lauding "pre-event preparedness." But it was silent on the delicate issue of how to inform the public. Soon after Mr. Obama arrived at the White House, he embarked a global campaign to fight atomic terrorism and sped up domestic planning for disaster response. A senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the new administration began a revision of the Bush administration's handbook to address the issue of public communication. "We started working on it immediately," the official said. "It was recognized as a key part of our response." The agenda hit a speed bump. Las Vegas was to star in the nation's first live exercise meant to simulate a terrorist attack with an atom bomb, the test involving about 10,000 emergency responders. But casinos and businesses protested, as did Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. He told the federal authorities that it would scare away tourists. Late last year, the administration backed down. "Politics overtook preparedness," said Mr. Kaniewski of George Washington University. When the administration came out with its revised planning guide in June, it noted that "no significant federal response" after an attack would be likely for one to three days. The document said that planners had an obligation to help the public "make effective decisions" and that messages for predisaster campaigns might be tailored for schools, businesses and even water bills. "The most lives," the handbook said, "will be saved in the first 60 minutes through sheltering in place." _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- 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

[tt] NYT: New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside
by Premise Checker 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable By WILLIAM J. BROAD Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don't come out till officials say it's safe. The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far. But a problem for the Obama administration is how to spread the word without seeming alarmist about a subject that few politicians care to consider, let alone discuss. So officials are proceeding gingerly in a campaign to educate the public. "We have to get past the mental block that says it's too terrible to think about," W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. "We have to be ready to deal with it" and help people learn how to "best protect themselves." Officials say they are moving aggressively to conduct drills, prepare communication guides and raise awareness among emergency planners of how to educate the public. Over the years, Washington has sought to prevent nuclear terrorism and limit its harm, mainly by governmental means. It has spent tens of billions of dollars on everything from intelligence and securing nuclear materials to equipping local authorities with radiation detectors. The new wave is citizen preparedness. For people who survive the initial blast, the main advice is to fight the impulse to run and instead seek shelter from lethal radioactivity. Even a few hours of protection, officials say, can greatly increase survival rates. Administration officials argue that the cold war created an unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack. "It's more survivable than most people think," said an official deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "The key is avoiding nuclear fallout." The administration is making that argument with state and local authorities and has started to do so with the general public as well. Its Citizen Corps Web site says a nuclear detonation is "potentially survivable for thousands, especially with adequate shelter and education." A color illustration shows which kinds of buildings and rooms offer the best protection from radiation. In June, the administration released to emergency officials around the nation an unclassified planning guide 130 pages long on how to respond to a nuclear attack. It stressed citizen education, before any attack. Without that knowledge, the guide added, "people will be more likely to follow the natural instinct to run from danger, potentially exposing themselves to fatal doses of radiation." Specialists outside of Washington are divided on the initiative. One group says the administration is overreacting to an atomic threat that is all but nonexistent. Peter Bergen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and New York University's Center on Law and Security, recently argued that the odds of any terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon are "near zero for the foreseeable future." But another school says that the potential consequences are so high that the administration is, if anything, being too timid. "There's no penetration of the message coming out of the federal government," said Irwin Redlener, a doctor and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University. "It's deeply frustrating that we seem unable to bridge the gap between the new insights and using them to inform public policy." White House officials say they are aware of the issue's political delicacy but are nonetheless moving ahead briskly. The administration has sought "to enhance national resilience--to withstand disruption, adapt to change and rapidly recover," said Brian Kamoie, senior director for preparedness policy at the National Security Council. He added, "We're working hard to involve individuals in the effort so they become part of the team in terms of emergency management." A nuclear blast produces a blinding flash, burning heat and crushing wind. The fireball and mushroom cloud carry radioactive particles upward, and the wind sends them near and far. The government initially knew little about radioactive fallout. But in the 1950s, as the cold war intensified, scientists monitoring test explosions learned that the tiny particles throbbed with fission products--fragments of split atoms, many highly radioactive and potentially lethal. But after a burst of interest in fallout shelters, the public and even the government grew increasingly skeptical about civil defense as nuclear arsenals grew to hold thousands of warheads. In late 2001, a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, the director of central intelligence told President George W. Bush of a secret warning that Al Qaeda had hidden an atom bomb in New York City. The report turned out to be false. But atomic jitters soared. "History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act," Mr. Bush said in late 2002. In dozens of programs, his administration focused on prevention but also dealt with disaster response and the acquisition of items like radiation detectors. "Public education is key," Daniel J. Kaniewski, a security expert at George Washington University, said in an interview. "But it's easier for communities to buy equipment--and look for tech solutions-- because there's Homeland Security money and no shortage of contractors to supply the silver bullet." After Hurricane Katrina in 2005 revealed the poor state of disaster planning, public and private officials began to question national preparedness for atomic strikes. Some noted conflicting federal advice on whether survivors should seek shelter or try to evacuate. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5.5 million for studies on atomic disaster planning, noting that "cities have little guidance available to them." The Department of Homeland Security financed a multiagency modeling effort led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The scientists looked at Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other big cities, using computers to simulate details of the urban landscape and terrorist bombs. The results were revealing. For instance, the scientists found that a bomb's flash would blind many drivers, causing accidents and complicating evacuation. The big surprise was how taking shelter for as little as several hours made a huge difference in survival rates. "This has been a game changer," Brooke Buddemeier, a Livermore health physicist, told a Los Angeles conference. He showed a slide labeled "How Many Lives Can Sheltering Save?" If people in Los Angeles a mile or more from ground zero of an attack took no shelter, Mr. Buddemeier said, there would be 285,000 casualties from fallout in that region. Taking shelter in a place with minimal protection, like a car, would cut that figure to 125,000 deaths or injuries, he said. A shallow basement would further reduce it to 45,000 casualties. And the core of a big office building or an underground garage would provide the best shelter of all. "We'd have no significant exposures," Mr. Buddemeier told the conference, and thus virtually no casualties from fallout. On Jan. 16, 2009--four days before Mr. Bush left office--the White House issued a 92-page handbook lauding "pre-event preparedness." But it was silent on the delicate issue of how to inform the public. Soon after Mr. Obama arrived at the White House, he embarked a global campaign to fight atomic terrorism and sped up domestic planning for disaster response. A senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the new administration began a revision of the Bush administration's handbook to address the issue of public communication. "We started working on it immediately," the official said. "It was recognized as a key part of our response." The agenda hit a speed bump. Las Vegas was to star in the nation's first live exercise meant to simulate a terrorist attack with an atom bomb, the test involving about 10,000 emergency responders. But casinos and businesses protested, as did Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. He told the federal authorities that it would scare away tourists. Late last year, the administration backed down. "Politics overtook preparedness," said Mr. Kaniewski of George Washington University. When the administration came out with its revised planning guide in June, it noted that "no significant federal response" after an attack would be likely for one to three days. The document said that planners had an obligation to help the public "make effective decisions" and that messages for predisaster campaigns might be tailored for schools, businesses and even water bills. "The most lives," the handbook said, "will be saved in the first 60 minutes through sheltering in place." _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt(a)postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- 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

[IP] more on The Shadow Internet
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

------ Forwarded Message From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder(a)Opus1.COM> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:18:55 -0700 To: <dave(a)farber.net> Cc: Ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com>, <dpaull(a)svpal.org> Subject: Re: [IP] more on The Shadow Internet > Is it really possible that the government is unable to identify > the topsites and find out which servers connect to them? It's harder than you might think. Let's say you have some person who you think is A Bad Guy. If they're a US person, and you're USG, then you can probably get their ISP to let you tap their wires. After you go to a judge. OK, so that's fine, except that everything they do is encrypted. We can't decrypt that (wrong part of the USG), but fortunately the IP address is not encrypted. So that leads us off to some OTHER ISP. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the ISP is in the US. Now USG treks over to that ISP and says "we want to peek." The ISP says "no," of course, so USG goes back to Judge and gets a warrant and ISP (if you're lucky) suddenly becomes cooperative. Except that the server is one of ten thousand piece-o-junk Linux boxes that some hosting company stuck in the data center which they sell web sites off at $2.50/month and so the best thing the ISP can do is point you at the box and disclose who is paying the bill. OK, go back to the judge, go back to the hosting company that owns the boxes and say "show us." The hosting company says, "that system is being rented by a light bulb distributor out of Reno." (I'm putting them in the US to make things easier, OK?) The hosting company passes over the passwords, the USG logs in (MAYBE or maybe not) and assuming that they don't screw it up (MAYBE or maybe not) they discover that the light bulb distributor has no idea what the hell is going on except that they used to pay $2.50 a month and now they're about to get a $1300 bandwidth bill, which they're going to take out of their system administrator's salary for using 'p4ssword' as the password. Anyway, enough of this easy stuff: now the trail gets interesting---the logs show that the connections to this box come from Canada. No, let's make it Korea. So what is Mr. G-man going to do? Yeah, he'll send off a couple of email messages which will either (a) get ignored or (b) get response telling him to get a Korean search warrant. And then it stops, because Mr. G-man ain't got no Korean judge and he ain't got no budget to go over to Korea and plead his case. But let's say that he does. By this time, the trail is so cold that the logs are gone (if there were any logs in the first place, which there generally are not), and now he's got to go back to Step 1, or maybe Step 2 or Step 3 but this time he's got to find a German judge or an Italian judge and so on and so on... Now, if the money were REALLY big and the problem were REALLY aggravating and this was the "once a year case that we want to send out press releases on," maybe he'd get some budget to deal with this. But they seem to do this about once a year, maybe twice if there's an election. Fundamentally, though, without someone driving the investigation via major powerful and highly funded friends in Washington, it's not going to happen. The existence of large piles of bandwidth concentrated in very large rooms which have thousands of poorly protected servers in them across at least 5 continents means that without really trying very hard the folks who want to keep things a secret are able to do that, simply by being mobile, IP-wise, finding new systems to hack into (trivial), and keeping redundant piles of data around. With a very small amount of care, you could hide your steps from all but the best funded and most persistent of investigators. And what might be interesting to Wired and its readers probably doesn't match the drugs-and-terrorism program at the Dep't of Justice. I've got people ONE hop away from me who WANT to cooperate but cannot produce the necessary logs to even point at who the bad guys are that are breaking into their machines. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms(a)Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- 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> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

1 0

BBC News: ID cards are of 'limited value'
by Bob Rosenberg 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Dave Perhaps of interest to IP. Bob BBC NEWS ID cards are of 'limited value' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4659228.stm ID cards would be of "limited value" against terror and would not have prevented the London attacks in July, says the reviewer of anti-terror laws. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile said he had changed his mind on identity cards, which he had previously backed. "I can't think of many terrorist incidents, in fact I can think of very few... that ID cards would have brought to an earlier end," he told GMTV. The bill introducing the ID cards plan is currently going through Parliament. It recently suffered two defeats in the Lords, with peers wanting an entirely voluntary scheme, and ministers wanting people applying for new passports and driving licences to be obliged to go on the ID card register. "ID cards could be of some value in the fight against terrorism but they are probably of quite limited value," Lord Carlile told GMTV's Sunday programme. Civil liberties fear "They would be an advantage but that advantage has to be judged against the disadvantages which Parliament may see in ID cards. "I certainly don't think the absence of ID cards could possibly have any connection with the events of last July. "There may be a gain from the security viewpoint in the curtailment of civil liberties, but Parliament has to be the judge about whether the proportion is right." He added: "I think Parliament is so unenthusiastic about the ID cards that, in reality, this is a debate rather than a reality. "I don't think they will get through a compulsory ID card system immediately." 'Rushed' debate Lord Carlile also said he thought the Terror Bill, debated by the Lords this month, had been "rushed". "I don't think there was a need to rush through the current terror legislation. I would have preferred it to go to a scrutiny committee. "I think it's led to certain issues being muddled by political debate rather than analysis." Ministers say ID cards are needed to fight identity fraud and illegal immigration. The plans were narrowly backed by the Commons last year but the House of Lords tabled a number of amendments aimed at making sure people have a choice. Conservative leader David Cameron has called ID cards a "monument to the failure of big government". His comments followed a report which estimated they would cost ?14.5bn - which the government denies. The government is likely to try to overturn the Lords defeats when the ID cards bill returns to the Commons. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4659228.stm Published: 2006/01/29 10:54:29 GMT ? BBC MMVI ------------------------------------- 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