============================================================
EDRi-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 7.16, 26 August 2009
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. The Pirate Bay - public enemy number one
2. Italian DNA database: The devil is in the details
3. People convicted in UK for refusing to surrender cryptographic keys
4. Google's Street View contested in France and Switzerland
5. UK: p2p three strikes clamp down despite civil liberties concerns
6. Belgium: Minister of Justice wants 2 years of data retention
7. Creative Commons licensed works available on Google Books
8. ENDitorial: Dutch NGO Bits of Freedom resumes its activities
9. Recommended Action
10. Recommended Reading
11. Agenda
12. About
============================================================
1. The Pirate Bay - public enemy number one
============================================================
The Pirate Bay (TBP) seems to be the website in the limelight these days,
after the music industry decided to attack it with every legal possibility
and in any country they can, with actions in Denmark,
Netherlands, Norway, Ireland and, of course, Sweden. The move seems not to
have troubled the website too much, but has definitely given it a lot of
publicity.
Thus the Pirate Bay was offline for a few hours on 24 August 2009, after its
ISP, called Black Internet, was obliged by a Swedish court order, following
an action from the music industry, to disconnect the website from Internet.
Otherwise Black Internet would had to pay penalties of 500 000 Swedish
Krowns (approx. 50 000 euros). But TPB already had in place a backup
solution, after the other problems with the music industry this year, and
came back online in a few hours, with a message for the "attackers":
"The MAFIAA has spent millions of dollars and endless amounts of time to get
this ban in order. Our guess is that they also bribed a bit to get it since
it violates so many laws not only in Sweden but also in the EU, not to
mention violations against human rights. And what do they have to show for
it? 3 hours of partial downtime"
In Ireland, according to the understanding reached by the music record
companies and the Irish ISP Eircom in January 2009, and to the order issued
by The High Court on 24 July 2009, Eircom has agreed to cut off the access
to TPB starting with 1 September 2009.
The agreement Eircom made with the music industry implied that the Irish ISP
would implement a three-strikes system to its users deemed guilty of
copyright infringement and also that it would not oppose any application to
the court to block access to The Pirate Bay.
Irish divisions of EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony music companies have also
sent official requests to the other Irish ISPs to block access to the
Pirate Bay website but, for the time being, this request was denied by UPC
and BT Ireland.
"UPC has informed the rights holders that there is no basis under Irish law
requiring an ISP to block access to certain websites and that it will not
agree to a request that goes beyond what is currently provided for under
Irish law," stated UPC who added that "UPC has every intention of vigorously
defending its position in Court."
BT Ireland has also confirmed that it has refused the music industry request
considering "there is no legal basis for such a request".
In Norway, a coalition of 21 movie and music industry companies sued
Telenor, the country's largest ISP trying to force it to block TPB. The
hearing is to take place in October.
In Netherlands, the anti-piracy organisation, BREIN won a court case at the
end of July against TPB. An Amsterdam court has ruled that the Swedish site
must cease its operations in 10 days in Netherlands. Otherwise they will
need to pay 30 000 euros per day in penalties. Even though the ten days have
passed now, the sentence is not applied yet and the three defendants have
already appealed the case. The two parties have clashed before the appeal at
the Hacking at Random, with a public juicy encounter between the head of
BREIN, Tim Kuik and the Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm.
All these publicity on the Pirate Bay could be connected with the purchase
of the site by the Swedish company Global Gaming Factory, which is estimated
to be closed by the end of this week.
Eircom to block the Pirate Bay from September; UPC not so keen (19.08.2009)
http://www.tjmcintyre.com/2009/08/eircom-to-block-pirate-bay-from.html
Eircom to block internet access to Pirate Bay as other firms refuse
(20.08.2009)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0820/1224252952116.html
Eircom Agrees to Block Pirate Bay Access (20.08.2009)
http://torrentfreak.com/eircom-agrees-to-block-pirate-bay-access-090820/
UPC Refuses to Block Pirate Bay (19.08.2009)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0819/breaking49.htm
Pirate Bay Faces ISP Block in Norway (19.08.2009)
http://freakbits.com/pirate-bay-faces-isp-block-in-norway-0819
Pirate Bay and BREIN Clash at Hacker Conference (16.08.2009)
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-and-brein-clash-at-hacker-conference-0908...
Pirate Bay website back online (25.08.2009)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8217800.stm
EDRI-gram: The big record companies are after Irish ISPs (15.07.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.14/irish-isp-copyright
============================================================
2. Italian DNA database: The devil is in the details
============================================================
On 30 June 2009, the Italian Parliament finally passed Law No. 85 that
ratifies the Prum Convention and forms the legal ground for the creation of
an Italian National DNA Database (NDNAD).
Although this law might have benefited from UK and USA court experience in
the field of DNA forensics, the current text indicates that neither British
nor American case law have been taken into consideration. Furthermore, the
law is flawed by a foggy understanding of the technicalities behind DNA
profiling and sloppy wording that certainly will not facilitate the work of
lawyers, prosecutors or judges. Just to highlight a few of these
inconsistencies, it must be noted that art. 8 (Attivita` del laboratorio
centrale per la banca dati nazionale del DNA - Activity of NDNA Database
Central Laboratory) lacks any general provision that would oblige all the
responsible parties to adopt serious and adequate security measures against
unauthorized access, data tampering, and illegal handling of data and
information.
Furthermore, art. 9 (Prelievo di campione biologico e tipizzazione del
profilo del DNA - Mandatory DNA Sample Collection and DNA Profile
Sequencing) states nothing about the need for a properly established chain
of custody. It is crucial that the collected sample be processed, both
technically and administratively, in such a way that it would be impossible
for a "planted" or "altered" sample to be used. This requirement was proven
vitally important in the OJ Simpson trial (held between 1994 and 1995 at the
Los Angeles Court in the USA) where the value of DNA evidence was
successfully challenged by the defendant due to law enforcement gaffes.
As if this wasn't enough, nothing is said about the effect of an improperly
managed chain of custody on admissibility of the samples as evidence in
Court. This is an issue similar to the one raised in the computer forensics
field, where there is an vigorous ongoing debate about the
admissibility/reliability of digital (volatile) information presented in
Court without a documented and technically well-grounded chain of custody
(the relevance of this issue is enhanced by the recent finding that DNA
samples can be easily faked without expensive facilities.)
This same lack of perspective can be observed in art.10 (Profili del DNA
tipizzati da reperti biologici acquisiti nel corso di procedimenti penali -
DNA Profiles Sequenced from Biological Samples gathered during Criminal
Investigations). (Its impact on due process and the right of defense are
addressed in the analysis of art. 12). This section deals with sample
tracing and access to data. Law enforcement officers can access the NDNA
database without prior authorisation from the prosecutor or the judge that
is responsible for the investigation involving the sample or profile in
question (under Italian law, law enforcement bodies are under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor). Since the article is silent about the
matter, only future court decisions will determine whether prior
authorization is needed to access the NDNA database, thus leaving wide open
a window of several years in which "anything can happen". It is worth
pointing out that there is no mention of defense and victim's lawyers in
this provision, thus making it impossible for them to make reasonable
discovery demands.
The third provision in art.12 requires neither the positive identification
of the personnel accessing the NDNA database and material in the central
lab, nor the secure logging of access to and activity involving the profile
and sample.
Art.13 also raises concerns (Cancellazione dei dati e distruzione dei
campioni biologici - Data Erasire and Destruction of Biological Samples).
Provision 3 doesn't clearly identify who is in charge of ordering the
destruction of samples and profiles. It would have been far more appropriate
(and easier) to say that samples, profiles and all of its related
information cannot be used during the trial. A judge in the preliminary
investigation, preliminary hearing or trial - depending on the stage of the
trial - orders the destruction of both profiles and samples from the NDNA
database, the central laboratory and any other place where this information
is stored (e.g. prosecutor's docket, law enforcement investigator files,
etc.)
Art.14 deals with punishment for a public officer that communicates or uses
data and information without authorization, or for purposes other than those
stipulated specifically in the law. Well, the punishment is incredibly
light: a jail term of between one and three years. This means that by
pleading guilty (up to 1/3 of a reduction in term) and obtaining a further
1/3 reduction for the "attenuanti generiche" (generic circumstances that
decrease the severity of the punishment), a defendant could face a final
jail term of less than six months that could be avoided by simply paying a
fine. Given the magnitude of the matter, one would expect to find harsh
punishments rather than the equivalent of a light slap on the hand.
Two final remarks:
The first one is about technology. The law says nothing about strategic
technological choices. Of course it is not to be expected that a law will
enter into the maze of ICT and molecular biology oddities. Naturally a
series of subordinate administrative acts will be adopted by the ministries
concerned. But what the law might have (and should have) laid down was the
inclusion of principles such as the use of non-proprietary file formats and
technologies (thus avoiding the technological "locked-in" syndrome that
allowed ICT multinationals to create a de facto monopoly since the cost of
converting huge quantities of information to a different format was so high
as to discourage the shift).
The second one concerns the "vicious loop" in assessing crime impact and
crime spreading. By excluding white collar crime profiles from the NDNAD,
the law can alter crime-related statistics. If all you can find in the NDNAD
are violent crimes committed by Africans or Balkan immigrants and
undocumented migrants (they will hardly be involved in stock exchange
frauds), prosecutors will find easier to investigate these crimes, with the
potential result being an injection of "hidden racism" into the justice
system.
To put it briefly: crime statistics are based upon prosecutory
investigations and trials, but if prosecutory investigations are based upon
the NDNA database, the only crimes that will be scrutinized by politicians
will be those that fall into the NDNA database.
Italian NDNA database. The devil is in the details
http://blog.andreamonti.eu/?p=165
(Contribution by Andrea Monti - EDRi-member ALCEI -Italy)
============================================================
3. People convicted in UK for refusing to surrender cryptographic keys
============================================================
According to the Annual Report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner Sir
Christopher Rose to the UK Prime Minister and Scottish Ministers, people
were sentenced between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 for not having given
their passwords or cryptographic keys, on the basis of powers provided to
authorities by section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
(RIPA) that came into force in October 2007.
The law, initially intended to deal with organised crime and terrorism,
allows the police and other enforcement agencies to demand from a person
passwords, encryption keys or a clear text transcript of encrypted texts.
Failure to comply can result in two years imprisonment for cases not
involving national security, or five years for terrorism or similar
offences. The required data can be even several years old.
The report, ordered by the House of Commons, shows that there were 26
applications for section 49 RIPA powers, out of which 17 obtained permission
from a judge to proceed. Out of the 17, 15 notices were served and 11 people
having received the notices failed to comply with the request. The actions
resulted in seven charges being brought and two convictions. According to
the report, the types of crimes under investigation in these cases were
"counter terrorism, child indecency and domestic extremism".
Sir Christopher was unable to give details on the two convictions or the
situations regarding the other five charges as the former High Court judge
did not provide such information and the Crown Prosecution Service stated it
could not track down any information on the cases without the defendants'
names.
According to The Home Office, the National Technical Assistance Centre
(NTAC) where the police is suppose to apply in order to obtain a section 49
notice do not follow up the results of the notices they approve and UK
Government Communications Headquarters which apparently covers NTAC, did not
answer to the request of revealing some information on these cases.
Annual Report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to the Prime Minister
and to Scottish Ministers for 2008-2009 (21.07.2009)
http://www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk/docs1/osc_annual_rpt_2008_09.pdf
Initial password prosecutions in UK (17.08.2009)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/143617
Two convicted for refusal to decrypt data (12.08.2009)
http://www.out-law.com/page-10250
EDRi-gram: UK: Decrypt data or go to prison! (10.10.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.19/ripa-part3-uk
============================================================
4. Google's Street View contested in France and Switzerland
============================================================
After being criticised and contested in several countries in Europe, such as
UK, Germany and Greece and even outside Europe like in Japan, it is the turn
of France and Switzerland to complain against Google's service Street View.
Several complaints have been recorded in France in 2009 against Street View
service as recently indicated by the French Data Protection Authority - CNIL
(Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertis).
CNIL is keeping an eye of Google's system as the company has introduced in
France this summer tricycles equipped with cameras to explore parks, walking
streets and other less crowded areas. Despite the system introduced by
Google to blur faces and other identification elements such as licence
plates from the images taken by Street View cameras, the system is not 100%
proof. For instance, profiles or faces through grills can still be visible
and are not blurred. Besides, people are also asking for other elements to
be blurred such as the access to private homes.
The French authority is also concerned about the delay in the data treatment
and the retention of raw images. In June, Google committed in front of
European Commission's Article 29 working party to improve this aspect and
delete the raw images but not on a very short term and no precise period of
time was given.
In Switzerland, less than one week after the launching of Street View, the
authorities have already asked for the immediate interruption of the service
under threat of taking the case to court as they consider that Google's
blurring technology is not good enough.
"Numerous reports from the public and our own research show that Google
Street View does not respect the conditions that were laid down. Many faces
and car numbers have not been blurred, or only insufficiently so," stated
Hans-Peter Th|r, the Swiss data protection commissioner who asked Google to
"improve the service and ensure that the images published meet Swiss legal
requirements".
In its defence, Google admitted there were still some flaws in their
technology: "Our face and license plate blurring software is very effective,
but like any new technology it still makes mistakes now and then -
occasionally blurring things that shouldn't be blurred, or missing some
things that should."
Sibastien Fanti, a lawyer specialised in Internet issues, warns on the fact
that all the data gathered by Google is available to US authorities as
according to the USA Patriot Act, any US government agency has access to
data collected anywhere in the world by US firms, even without a court
order. "If the CIA asks to see what was going on in Zurich this spring,
Google isn't going to provide blurred images," says Fanti.
Google's Switzerland spokesman Matthias Meyer admitted that the companies is
collaborating with authorities but stated that "What we are putting on line
are photos of the past. Once they've been taken they don't change, nothing
is shown in real time."
This is far from being reassuring and as it can be seen people in many
countries there are a lot of privacy concerns related to Street View
service.
Google Street View feeds Cnil's complaints (only in French, 10.08.2009)
http://www.01net.com/editorial/504863/google-street-view-alimente-le-bureau-...
CNIL in the wheel of Street view tricycle (only in French, 7.08.2009)
http://www.cnil.fr/la-cnil/actu-cnil/article/article/2/40-000-euros-damende-...
Switzerland asks the interruption of Google Street View (only in French,
24.08.2009)
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,39705022,00.htm
Europe asks for the suppression of the raw images by Google Street View
(only in French, 16.06.2009)
http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,39504703,00.htm
Big Google is watching you - really? (only in French, 21.08.2009)
http://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/a_la_une/Big_Google_is_watching_you_vraiment.html?siteSect=106&sid=11108347&cKey=1250952340000&ty=st
Street View privacy guarantees remain fuzzy (24.08.2009)
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Street_View_privacy_guarantees_remain_fuzzy.html?siteSect=105&sid=11117594&rss=true&ty=st
EDRi-gram: Privacy complaints related to Google's Street View (16.07.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.14/privacy-street-view
============================================================
5. UK: p2p three strikes clamp down despite civil liberties concerns
============================================================
A new proposal shows that the UK Government has given in to the pressure of
right holders who have complained that the measures proposed by the 'Digital
Britain' report were not powerful enough "to have a significant deterrent
effect on infringing behaviour".
The new proposals would allow Lord Peter Mandelson, UK
Secretary of State, to approve automated sanctions against file-sharers (so
basically a three strikes scheme) and thus, practically, placing the
regulator Ofcom under Mandelson's orders. Apparently, this follows a meeting
between Lord Mandelson and the David Geffen, head of Steven Spielberg's
Dreamworks Studio.
The new proposal also takes into consideration British Recorded
Music Industry's amendment addressed to the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act proposing that ISPs should be made liable for copyright infringement and
obliged to introduce measures against infringers.
BIS seems to take for granted the opinion of the industry that all
file-sharing is unlawful and that the right solution is represented by
technical measures which actually imply automated network technology to
block websites and user connections.
One of these technical measures is what is called the deep packet inspection
implying the opening by the ISP of each data package. After checking out the
package content, the ISP can decide on interrupting the communication. This
is actually legal interception and is not allowed under EU laws including
the UK law. Technical measures are infringing Amendment 138 of the EU
Telecoms Package but all this does not seem to concern the UK Government.
In line with EU Commissioner Viviane Reding's opinion expressed in July at
the Ludwig Erhard Lecture 2009 Lisbon Council in Brussels, UK MEP Tom
Watson, who has joined the online copyright enforcement debate, believes
drastic measures such as the automated suspension of the Internet connection
are not the best methods to deal with illegal file-sharing. In his opinion,
the policy-makers should rather consider assisting companies in creating new
business models and setting up efficient alternative distribution structures
for online music and entertainment works.
Mr Watson considers the technical measures are only in favour of an industry
that is not ready to change and that the government should find ways to
promote innovation and deal with the changes in the entertainment business
which develop along with the development of the IT technology.
UK 3-strikes - MP urges consultancy not censorship (20.08.2009)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=9
Mandelson to sit in judgement on UK file-sharers (25.08.2009)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=9
Government details how Digital Britain Report will become reality
(18.08.2009)
http://www.out-law.com/page-10300
UK anti-filesharing plans get the Mandelson touch (17.08.2009)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=383&Itemid=9
Digital Britain: Government vows to cut illegal file-sharing by 70%
(16.06.2009)
http://www.out-law.com/page-10097
BIS Implementation Plan of Digital Britain (08.2009)
http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/DB_ImplementationPlanv6_Aug09....
Internet cut-off threat for illegal downloaders (25.08.2009)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/25/file-sharing-internet
EDRI-gram: EU Commissioner: Current business models encourage illegal
file-sharing (15.07.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.14/reding-business-models-encourage-p2...
============================================================
6. Belgium: Minister of Justice wants 2 years of data retention
============================================================
Belgium is starting again to discuss the implementation of the data
retention directive, suggesting a 2-year retention period for electronic
communication traffic data, according with the Flemish newspaper De Tijd.
The initial discussion in 2008 did not passed the criticism received
from the Belgian Data Protection Authority and from the public comments
submitted by an ad hoc alliance of civil society and industry.
The draft was presented these days in the media by the Minister of Justice,
Stefaan De Clerck. He asks for a two year period for data retention,
claiming that the Police and the Prosecutors Office need the data for that
long. The draft foresees that the prosecutor or the magistrate in a case has
to submit a written justification for every query.
The Belgium ISP Association claimed that a period of six months should be
enough, asking the Government to support the costs for a longer period.
Otherwise the cost might be passed to the user, therefore an increased cost
for an Internet connection.
The Belgium Data Protection Authority (DPA) has also considered a two year
period as excessive. In a comment sent to the Government on this topic, the
Authority has suggested a one year period. After that period, all the stored
data needs to be deleted immediately.
The DPA has stated that a public report needs to be made public each
year in order to assess if the data retention is necessary and in what
conditions it was used. The Authority made also several comments on the
text - for a better clarification of the "public networks" definition or the
"exceptional circumstances" when the data can be kept more than 24 months.
Comments from the Belgium DPA on the data retention draft law (only in
French, 1.07.2009)
http://www.privacycommission.be/fr/docs/Commission/2009/avis_20_2009.pdf
Emails kept for 2 years, Internet user might pay (only in French,
12.08.2009)
http://www.rtbf.be/info/economie/la-justice-risque-de-rendre-linternet-plus-...
Belgium wants to go for 2 years in data retention (only in Dutch,
12.08.2009)
http://www.tijd.be/nieuws/ondernemingen_diensten/Justitie_maakt_internet_duu...
============================================================
7. Creative Commons licensed works available on Google Books
============================================================
Google Books announced on 13 August 2009 the launching of an initiative
allowing writers, artists and publishers to specify their works as Creative
Commons (CC) works, being able to choose between the six CC version 3
licenses, a public domain license or the CC "no rights reserved" license.
This gives right holders a simple way to give clear indications on the legal
rights they have to CC-licensed works found through Google Books and tell
readers whether and how they can use the copyrighted books.
A few authors have already made their CC books available on Google Books and
these books have been marked by a matching logo on the book's left hand
navigation bar. Books can thus be downloaded, shared and even modified and
remixed if the right holder has chosen to allow this.
People downloading these books agree to use them only as specified by the
license, as for instance giving proper credit to the author in case of
remixing and further public distributions.
Google Books also announced that according to the publisher's choice, it
will introduce the option to restrict searches of books accordingly.
Representatives of the Book Rights Registry have also shown the intention to
allow the free distribution by right holders of CC-licensed works in case
the settlement is approved in court.
This action might come also in light of the late criticism and investigation
of Google Books by the European Commission with the hearing to come very
soon on 7 September. The hearing seems to come late, as 4 September is
the deadline of submissions on the settlement that the US Judge has set in
this case. With a final decision in this case estimated on 7 October, the
European hearing finds widespread disagreement between different publishers.
Bringing the power of Creative Commons to Google Books (13.08.2009)
http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2009/08/bringing-power-of-creative-commons-to...
Google Books adds Creative Commons license options (13.08.2009)
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/16823
Europe Divided on Google Book Deal (24.08.2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24iht-books.html
EDRI-gram: EU EC hearing on Google book deal (29.07.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number7.15/ec-investigating-google-books
============================================================
8. ENDitorial: Dutch NGO Bits of Freedom resumes its activities
============================================================
When EDRi was established, its founders recognized that co-operation
between European digital rights organisations was essential for the
effective protection of digital civil rights in the years ahead. EDRi
would in the subsequent years indeed come to serve as an important
framework for this co-operation.
One of these founders was a Dutch digital rights organization called Bits of
Freedom (BoF). Not only has it helped establishing EDRi, but
it was also one of the first digital rights organisations in Europe.
Thus, it was highly unfortunate that Bits of Freedom announced in August
2006 that it would cease most of its activities. Both full-time
employees decided to leave, and the continuing uncertainty about financing
led to the conclusion that a relaunch at that time was not possible.
Of all the reasons which led to this conclusion, the lack of work was not
one, however: "a bottom-up civil rights movement in the Netherlands
seems more necessary than ever", one of the former directors of Bits of
Freedom wrote in the EDRI-gram at that time.
Now, exactly three years later, we are happy to announce that Bits of
Freedom resumed its activities this month. A substantial initial grant
by the Dutch foundation Internet4All allows Bits of Freedom to start
again defending Dutch civil rights in the information society.
Bits of Freedom will focus on protecting privacy and communications
freedom in a digital age. It will do so by influencing government policy
and self regulation, not only on a national, but also on a European level.
And when doing so on a European level, Bits of Freedom still is convinced
that co-operation between European digital rights organisations remains
an essential part of effectively defending freedom in a digital world.
Bits of Freedom strives to make a meaningful contribution to that
co-operation in the years to come.
The new executive board of the foundation consists of Doke Pelleboer
(former CEO of Dutch ISP XS4ALL), Joris van Hoboken (researcher at the
University of Amsterdam) and Karianne Thomas (attorney at the Dutch law
firm Van Doorne). The organisation will be led by Ot van Daalen (former
attorney at the Dutch law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek).
Bits of Freedom website
http://www.bof.nl
Press release on re-launch of BoF (only in Dutch, 14.08.2009)
http://www.bof.nl/persbericht140809.html
EDRi-gram: End of activities Bits of Freedom (2.08.2009)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.15/bof
(contribution by Ot van Daalen, Director EDRi-member Bits of Freedom -
Netherlands)
============================================================
9. Recommended Action
============================================================
Public consultation on post-i2010: priorities for new strategy for European
information society (2010-2015)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/pc_post-i2010/index_en...
Launch of International Free and Open Source Software Law Review.
http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/announcement/view/1
============================================================
10. Recommended Reading
============================================================
Statewatch analysis - EU agrees on rules for remote computer access by
police forces, but fails, as usual, to mention the security and intelligence
agencies
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-83-remote-computer-access.pdf
The Privacy Jungle: On the Market for Data Protection in Social Networks
http://preibusch.de/publications/social_networks/privacy_jungle_dataset.htm
============================================================
11. Agenda
============================================================
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
12 September 2009, Worldwide
2nd International Action Day "Freedom not Fear - Stop the Surveillance
Mania" Demonstrations, Events, Privacy Parties etc. in many countries
http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Freedom_Not_Fear_2009
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
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/gikii/2009.asp
23-24 September 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark
The Net will not forget
European conference on ICT and Privacy
http://www.ict-privacy.dk/
29-30 September 2009, Warsaw, Poland
3rd International Conference "Keeping Children and Young People Safe Online"
http://konferencja.saferinternet.pl/articles-2009/3rd_international_conferen...
1-2 October 2009, Barcelona, Spain
6th Communia Workshop: Memory Institutions and Public Domain
http://www.communia-project.eu/ws06
16 October 2009, Bielefeld, Germany
10th German Big Brother Awards
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/
21-23 October 2009, Istanbul, Turkey
eChallenges 2009
http://www.echallenges.org/e2009/default.asp
24 October 2009, Zurich, Switzerland
Big Brother Awards Switzerland
Deadline for nominations: 31 August 2009
http://www.bigbrotherawards.ch/2009/
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/
29 October - 1 November 2009, Barcelona, Spain
Free Culture Forum: Organization and Action
http://fcforum.net/
3 November 2009, Madrid, Spain
Civil Society Conference: "Global Privacy Standards for a Global Economy"
Organized by Electronic Privacy Information Center
http://www.privacyconference2009.org/privacyconf2009/home/eventos_previos/Co...
4-6 November 2009, Madrid, Spain
31st International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy
http://www.privacyconference2009.org
13-15 November 2009, Gothenburg, Sweden
Free Society Conference and Nordic Summit
http://www.fscons.org/
15-18 November 2009, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt
UN Internet Governance Forum
http://www.intgovforum.org/
============================================================
12. 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