============================================================
EDRI-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 6.18, 24 September 2008
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. Google reduces search data retention time to 9 months, but not enough
2. International workshop in Budapest challenges data retention
3. Spain: Indexing torrent files is not copyright infringement
4. The EU commissioners ask for a friendly environment in online retailing
5. French file EDVIGE revised after huge civil society mobilization
6. House of the German Pirate Party spokesman raided by Police
7. European Competition Commissioner: We investigate Google-Yahoo deal
8. ENDitorial: A stupid law and a perverse "criminal" sentence
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About
============================================================
1. Google reduces search data retention time to 9 months, but not enough
============================================================
Following the demands of EU privacy protection authorities, Google announced
on 9 September it would reduce the search data retention time from 18 to 9
months.
This is the second reduction Google applies in the past 2 years, having
already reduced the retention period from indefinite to 18 months in 2007.
However, the company still does not meet the Article 29 Working Party's
recommendations.
On 4 April 2008, the Article 29 Working Party published an opinion on search
engines, recommending a maximum retention period of 6 months and reaffirming
the applicability of the European data protection law. "Search engine
providers must delete or irreversibly anonymise personal data once they no
longer serve the specified and legitimate purpose they were collected for."
As a result, on 8 September 2008, Google answered announcing that the IP
addresses associated with requests on the search engine will be anonymised
after 9 months and that a link to Google's privacy policy appeared now on
its homepage.
The company did not provide any details regarding the way this anonymisation
will work which, taking into consideration previous statements, will just
consist in deleting the last 8 bits of a user's IP address. But if this does
not go together with the anonymisation of the cookie values, then the entire
process is useless, as Christopher Soghoian, a student fellow at Harvard
University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society explains: "Even though
the 9-month-old search logs have been 'anonymized', because the cookie
values remain, it is trivial to match the newer search results to the older
searches, and thus completely reverse the anonymization process."
Although the Article 29 Working Party has appreciated Google's willingness
to collaborate with data protection authorities, they consider there are
still strong disagreements. Alex Turk, chairman of the Article 29 Working
Party, says in a public press release on 16 September 2008 that despite the
progress done, Google has still a lot of work to do to guarantee the rights
of Internet users and the respect of their privacy.
Some of the issues that raise concern are that Google considers that the
European law on data protection is not applicable to itself and that IP
addresses are confidential data, but not personal data. The company has not
offered a clear justification for retaining personal data beyond the
recommended 6 months period and has not made any improvement to its
anonymisation mechanisms, which are still insufficient. Furthermore, it did
not show any intention to improve and clarify the methods used to gather the
consent of its users. The Article 29 Working Party established in 2007 that
the IP address is related to an "identifiable person", and should thus be
considered personal data. Therefore, Google should ask its users' prior
permission before storing the information.
Google argued there was a question of quality of service. "While we're glad
that this will bring some additional improvement in privacy, we're also
concerned about the potential loss of security, quality, and innovation that
may result from having less data. (...) As the period prior to anonymisation
gets shorter, privacy benefits are less significant and the utility lost
from the data grows" wrote Peter Fleisher, the company's global privacy
lawyer on the Google blog.
Another step to protect user privacy (9.08.2008)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-step-to-protect-user-privacy....
Google cuts data retention after EU privacy warning (10.09.2008)
http://euobserver.com/22/26718
Google tries to please privacy watchdogs (10.09.2008)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/google-tries-please-privacy-watchdogs...
Article 29 Working Party - Google: The Beginning of a Dialogue (16.09.2008)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/news/docs/pr_16_09_08_en.pdf
Debunking Google's log anonymization propaganda (11.09.2008)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html?tag=mncol;title
EDRi-gram: Google limits the search data retention period (28.03.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.6/google-data-retention
============================================================
2. International workshop in Budapest challenges data retention
============================================================
70 international experts and e-activists met in Budapest on Friday 19
September to discuss EU-wide policies on data retention and to develop
strategies for defending and enhancing privacy. Hosted by the Center for
Media and Communication Studies (CMCS) at the Central European
University in Budapest, the workshop "Data retention on the Internet:
Challenges for small, alternative and citizen-based internet service
providers (ISPs)" brought together scholars, lawyers, policy experts,
digital rights advocates and a large number of grassroots/activist ISPs.
EDRI was represented through its board member Meryem Marzouki and Digital
Rights Ireland, Electronic Frontier Finland, Iuridicum Remedium, Netzwerk
Neue Medien and Greennet.
According to European Union (EU) Directive 2006/24/EC, all
telecommunication operators and ISPs in the EU have to retain the email
and telephone connection data of their customers and users for up to two
years. Data about every citizen's communication is stored without a
specific reason. According to workshop participant TJ McIntyre from
Digital Rights Ireland, this allows the creation of a "comprehensive
digital dossier about every individual."
Workshop participants exchanged information about the implementation of
the Directive in different EU member states and explored options of
challenging data retention on three different levels: legal complaints
and court cases, technological by-passes, and public campaigns. On the
legal side, the workshop brought together organizations that are
challenging data retention laws in five different countries and allowed
them to exchange experiences and increase future collaborations. In the
technical realm, different options of minimizing the risks of data
retention, or circumventing it altogether, were introduced. The workshop
also contributed to the preparation for an international day of action
against data retention - entitled "Freedom not Fear" - on 11
October. Many of the groups and organizations that were represented at
the workshop agreed to organize a protest action or a public event on
that day.
The workshop was the first to bring together members of non-commercial
ISPs from different countries with members of international campaigns
and NGOs to discuss together the new policy environment and this
sector's particular concerns. The EU directive forces these ISPs to
compromise on their most fundamental objective - protecting their users'
privacy from state and corporate data gathering. Grassroots ISPs
continued to meet on the weekend following the workshop and developed
strategies on how to maximise privacy protection despite data retention
obligations.
The workshop was organized by Arne Hintz (CMCS), Oliver Leistert
(University of Paderborn), and Maxigas (Zold Pok/Green Spider), in
collaboration with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
and EDRI. It was supported financially by the Dutch Internet provider
XS4ALL, the Open Society Institute (OSI), and APC.
Center for Media and Communication Studies
http://cmcs.ceu.hu
Association for Progressive Communications
http://www.apc.org
Zold Pok (Green Spider)
http://www.zpok.hu
EU directive paints alternative ISPs black (3.08.2008)
http://www.apc.org/en/news/security/europe/eu-directive-paints-alternative-i...
EDRi-gram - Telecom data retention
http://www.edri.org/issues/privacy/dataretention
(Contribution by Arne Hintz - Center for Media and Communication Studies)
============================================================
3. Spain: Indexing torrent files is not copyright infringement
============================================================
The case of Sharemula.com, the eDonkey website publishing links allowing
users to download movies, music and software has been recently dismissed by
the Provincial Court of Madrid which ruled that the website was operating
legally.
The case had been brought to court by the Federacisn Antipiraterma
(Anti-piracy Federation) in 2006 when 15 people were arrested in Spain in
relation with the operation of the site. The Spanish Brigade of
Technological Investigations had claimed that the site was illegal and asked
for its closure.
A year ago, a Madrid court dismissed the case deciding that the site and its
administrators had not infringed any law as the site included no illegal
content. It had only links to P2P downloads which had no commercial purposes
either.
The entertainment industry, including Columbia, Disney Company Iberia,
Twentieth Century Fox, Warner, Universal, Paramount, Sony, MGM and others
were very displeased with the court's ruling and appealed the decision.
But the Provincial Court of Madrid rejected all allegations concluding
that indexing torrent files can not be viewed as copyright infringement. The
court found Sharemula as not responsible for where the links went and
considered that whether the site made profit or not was irrelevant. This
court's decision is final and cannot be appealed.
"The hearing confirms the position of the defense that linking to P2P
networks does not constitute a criminal offense," said David Bravo, a lawyer
in the case who emphasized the fact that the website only linked to files
that were hosted elsewhere, on computers of P2P users, and did not store any
copyrighted material itself.
This decision represents good news for P2P-site administrators and may be a
good basis for the upcoming cases against The Pirate Bay and Mininova in
Europe.
Auto final AP Madrid caso Sharemula (only in Spanish, 19.09.2008)
http://derecho-internet.org/proyectos/procedimientos-libres/browser/defensa-...
Linking to P2P Downloads Confirmed Legal in Spain (19.09.2008)
http://torrentfreak.com/linking-to-p2p-downloads-confirmed-legal-in-spain-08...
Spanish Court Dismisses Piracy Case against Sharemula.com (24.10.2007)
http://www.whichwebsite.com/2007/Oct/spanish_court_dismisses_piracy_case_aga...
EDRi-gram: Website with P2P download links found legal by Spanish court
(24.10.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.20/p2p-website-legal-spain
============================================================
4. The EU commissioners ask for a friendly environment in online retailing
============================================================
A roundtable on online retailing with the interested private companies,
including online music providers, and consumers organisations took place at
the European Commission in Brussels on 17 September 2008 with competition
commissioner Neelie Kroes and internal market commissioner Charlie McCreevy.
Ms Kroes expressed her concern regarding the barriers in buying music
online: "Why is it possible to buy a CD from an online retailer and have it
shipped to anywhere in Europe, but it is not possible to buy the same music,
by the same artist, as an electronic download with similar ease? (...) Why
do pan-European services find it so difficult to get a pan-European license?
Why do new, innovative services find licensing to be such a hurdle?"
The commissioner believes there are many reasons for this situation,
including tax systems, consumer protection laws, guarantees and after-sales
service. One of the issues she wanted to discuss was related to the
competition rules for companies that enter into distribution agreements. She
expressed her intention to check out whether the provisions for Internet
sales were observed adding: "if I hear that these rules are not being
respected, then I will look into these allegations immediately. And if I
find any company to have breached the rules, I will ask the Commission to
act and punish the companies concerned."
She added that consideration had to be given on whether companies should
exclude Internet-only retailers from their distribution system. "I have
heard today from companies who think that that is the best way to protect a
brand image. I have also heard from companies that use internet only
retailers but impose strict conditions on them. And I have also heard from
consumers who believe that consumers should have the right to choose."
During the debate, the issue was considered as more complex as the rights
and the licensing agreements were more complicated. "The world is always
more complicated than we would like it to be. But that is no excuse for
inaction. Collecting societies and music labels have come a long way since
1851, the time of Bourget and his sugared water, but the world has changed
around them. Artists have changed, distribution has changed, and consumers
have changed. There is a perception, though, that the collecting societies
and the music labels have not" was Mrs. Kroes' comment. She considers the
collecting societies have a vital responsibility in looking after the
interests of artists. "That is only right because music is a vital part of
our society and our culture. It always has been and it always will be. But
where regional monopolies are not necessary - in the online world - then I
want to hear more about whether the current system really helps the artists
and whether it serves the consumer." She warned that the commission would
intervene if musicians, record labels and retailers were not able to
overcome their differences and produce a more consumer-friendly environment
for digital music distribution.
In his turn, McCreevy stated he had never thought " the internet was going
to be such a stumbling block. This magical creation - invented by people who
hadn't been born 50 years ago and developed by people, some of whom hadn't
been born 25 years ago - has no natural physical frontiers or boundaries
like traditional markets. But somehow it has been trapped and parcelled up
by a whole series of barriers."
In his opinion, it was worth considering "the idea that every single owner
of a copyright - from authors and composers to music publishers and record
labels - should license downloads individually through a collecting society
that has an exclusive mandate for each of the 27 national territories."
Along with Apple and EMI, the meeting was attended also by Alcatel-Lucent,
Ebay, Louis Vuitton, Fiat and UK consumer watchdog Which? as the problems
of online retailing are not limited to music.
A commission report on the subject will be drafted later this year with Mr
Jagger's and the others' participation and the EU executive will require
responses to that report from stakeholders by 15 October 2009. Later on,
the European Commission will present its legislative proposals on Internet
retailing.
Mick Jagger in Brussels for online retailing chat (18.09.2008)
http://euobserver.com/19/26771
Competition commissioner Neelie Kroes's closing remarks at Online Commerce
Roundtable (17.09.2008)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Charlie McCREEVY's
closing remarks at Online Commerce Roundtable (17.09.2008)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/439&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
============================================================
5. French file EDVIGE revised after huge civil society mobilization
============================================================
Following a very strong opposing movement, the decree allowing the creation
of EDVIGE file has been abandoned by the French Government, but it will be
replaced by a modified project called now EDVIRSP.
On 1 July 2008, the French Government had announced a project creating a
huge database, EDVIGE (Exploitation documentaire et valorisation de
l'information ginirale - Documentary exploitation and valorisation of
general information) which would have systematically gathered information on
any person having applied for or exercised a political, union or economical
mandate or playing a significant institutional, economical, social or
religious part as well as information on any person considered by the police
as a "suspect" potentially capable of disrupting the public order.
The decree was very rapidly and strongly opposed by a large number of
associations, organizations, political parties, unions and individuals.
Almost 200 000 signatures and 1200 associations have supported a petition
against the decree and 12 organizations, among which four main labour
unions, main Lesbian and Gay associations, the French Human Rights League,
and French EDRi-member IRIS, have filed a complaint before the French
highest administrative court to have this decree cancelled. As a result, the
French Government has given up the decree and the prime minister's office
announced on 18 September a new decree having in view a modified file called
EDVIRSP (Exploitation documentaire et valorisation de l'information relative
` la sicuriti publique - Documentary exploitation and valorisation of
information related to public security).
Differently from EDVIGE, the new file will explicitly exclude information
related to people's health or sexual orientation, but will keep other
sensitive personal data such as ethnical origin, as well as political,
philosophical, religious opinions or union affiliation. In addition, it
will no longer allow police to collect data in the same file on people
belonging to political parties, unions or religious groups only because of
their activities. The criteria for data gathering will be related to
perceived security threats.
Although a first victory for the opponents of EDVIGE, the new decree is
still far from being satisfactory. The new text still allows the police to
store data on minors starting the age of 13 if they are considered a threat
to public safety. A "right to oblivion" was also introduced meaning the data
gathered on minors is to be deleted when coming of age 18, except for the
case when a new element occurs between 16 and 18, where the data is deleted
at 21.
The 12 organizations having filed the complaint against EDVIGE, together
with the large coalition of petition signatories, consider it is
unacceptable for the database to include minors, especially when they
haven't committed any offence, and ask for stronger guarantees that
citizens' rights and freedoms would be respected, starting from their right
to the presumption of innocence. They continue to call for the withdrawal of
the entire decree.
The new project has been sent to The French Data Protection Authority
(Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertis) which should give
its opinion in a month.
Opponents to the database have called for a day of demonstrations on 16
October, on the occasion of Sainte Edwige's day of the Roman Catholic
calendar.
Files: from Edvige to EDVIRSP, a capital change (only in French, 21.09.2008)
http://www.rue89.com/philippe-madelin/2008/09/21/fichiers-dedvige-a-edvirsp-...
Edvige:"insufficient rebound" (SM) (only in French, 20.09.2008)
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2008/09/20/01011-20080920FILWWW00552-edvig...
EDVIGE file becomes EDVIRSP (only in French, 20.09.2008)
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/societe/20080920.OBS1990/le_fichie...
Edvige file : the opponents stay vigilant (only in French, 19.09.2008)
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2008/09/19/fichier-edvige-les-opposant...
RAS - Petition in order to obtain the abandoning of EDVIGE file (only in
French)
http://nonaedvige.ras.eu.org/
France drops plan for political database after row (18.09.2008)
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSLI3864020080918
EDRi-gram: ENDitorial: Massive mobilization against EDVIGE, the new French
database (16.07.2008)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.14/edvige-french-database
============================================================
6. House of the German Pirate Party spokesman raided by Police
============================================================
The Bavarian Police searched the house of the German Pirate Party spokesman
on the 11 September 2008, searching for information on some leaked plans
regarding a Skype wire tap project, that were published by the Party.
The Pirate Party published some documents received from an anonymous
whistleblower that show the Bavarian government plans to develop a Trojan
horse able to eavesdrop on Skype conversations. Police wanted to find out
the source of that information and they searched the house of the spokesman
and took away a server, but this was fully encrypted, so there are little
chances to discover the source.
The search seems to be related to the two documents leaked on January 2008
that were present on the Internet and then posted on Wikileaks website. The
first document is a communication by the Bavarian Ministry of Justice to the
prosecutors' office, relating to cost distribution for the interception
licenses between the police and the prosecution. The second document
allegedly presents the offer made by Digitask, the German company developing
the technology, holding information on pricing and the license model,
high-level technology descriptions and other details.
The recent action by the police has little chances to find the
whistleblower, but confirm the authenticity of the documents. "A brave
person leaks documents to the Pirate Party, to inform the public about a
procedure of the Bavarian Government, which is highly likely to violate the
constitution. Now this persons is hunted like a criminal. Private rooms are
raided, servers get seized." stated Andreas Popp, the Chairman of the
Bavarian Pirate Party.
German cyberplods raid Pirate Party on Skype Trojan mole hunt (18.09.2008)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/german_police_raid_pirate_party/
Pirate Party Official Raided after Uncovering State Trojan (17.09.2008)
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-official-raided-after-uncovering-state-...
Chairman of the Koln Pirate Party condemned house search (only in German,
18.09.2008)
http://pressemitteilung.ws/node/136096
Skype and SSL interception letters (24.01.2008)
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Skype_and_SSL_Interception_letters_-_Bavaria_-_Dig...
============================================================
7. European Competition Commissioner: We investigate Google-Yahoo deal
============================================================
Google announced in June that it had struck a deal with Yahoo, so it would
sell ads on Yahoo website in return for a share of the profits. The EU
anti-competition authorities confirms that they are investigating the deal
between the two majors in the online advertising.
The major competitors claimed that this new deal gives a dominant position
for Google. This is why the agreement has also been investigated for some
months by the US Department of Justice that hired a well-known Washington
litigator to oversee the anti-trust proceedings.
Although the companies said that the deal would have effect only in Canada
and the United States, The World Association of Newspapers called for a
investigation from the EU authorities, claiming: "it would hurt Yahoo's
ability to compete against Google in the future."
Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for European Competition Commissioner Neelie
Kroes, confirmed the investigation :"In mid-July, we decided to open a
preliminary investigation on our own initiative into potential effects of
the Google-Yahoo agreement on competition in the European Economic Area
(EEA) market."
Google claimed that the deal would have no effect on the EEA market, since
"the agreement is limited in scope to Yahoo's U.S. and Canadian websites",
while Yahoo showed his cooperation with the EU authorities stating that the
company "has been and will continue to work with the relevant regulatory
agencies to provide officials with the necessary information about this
business agreement, which we believe will strengthen competition in search
and make advertisements more relevant for our users."
As it was the case with the Google - Doubleclick deal, it seems that both
the US and EU authorities will not investigate the privacy issues of the new
Google-Yahoo agreement, even though serious concerns have already been
expressed.
EDRi-member Joris van Hoboken points out the Google blog entry related to
the Google-Yahoo deal that claims: "neither company has access to
personally identifiable user information from the other company", giving no
explanation on what the two companies understand by "personally identifiable
information". Since server logs are not considered by Google as personally
identifiable information, it could be possible that the present deal gives
Google access to Yahoo search data.
EU competition officials probing Google-Yahoo deal (15.09.2008)
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSBRU00674420080915?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10003
European regulators investigate Google-Yahoo advertising deal (16.09.2008)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/16/google.yahoo
The Google-Yahoo Deal and the Privacy of End-Users (20.09.2008)
http://www.jorisvanhoboken.nl/?p=189
============================================================
8. ENDitorial: A stupid law and a perverse "criminal" sentence
============================================================
There is no censorship in Italy, but...
"Censorship" was abolished and outlawed in Italy sixtytwo years
ago. Freedom of the press and of personal opinion is not only established by
the Constitution, but also deeply rooted in custom and in all perceptions of
civil society. There are, however, some worrying facts. The concentration in
a few hands of a large part of the information system. A general,
"centralized" myopia of the "dominant culture", that is partly deliberate
manipulation and partly unintentional ignorance. A sly, apparently
"benevolent", culture of superficiality and vagueness that tends to lull,
confuse and subdue.
A disturbing maverick, in this context, is the internet. Originally
feared, later ambiguously applauded, anyhow misunderstood, the net remains
annoying for those who are in the habit of having control and are irritated,
if not scared, by a tool that they can't dominate or "tame".
It would be long to repeat here what I have written several times,
since I published Cassandra in 1996 and continued with eighty articles in
Italian (thirteen also in English) in the "freedom and censorship" section
of my website. But a recent episode deserves some comment.
In this ambiguous context there are laws and "norms" that are poorly
conceived and applied even worse. One, in particular, is the law on
"clandestine press" (1948) to which was added, fiftythree years later (2001)
a clumsy definition of "authorization" for "journalistic publications"
online.
Before we get into this specific subject, let's look at two articles
of the Italian Constitution.
In Article 3 it is stated that +All citizens have equal social
status and are equal before the law.; But this isn't quite so. There are
laws (in addition to "social status") that make some citizens "more equal
than others". And there are several formally organized categories that have
improper and unreasonable privileges. In addition to all sorts of
limitations (or bureaucratic hindrance) of free enterprise, in business,
society and culture, that everyone agrees should be removed, but de facto
remain - and sometimes get worse.
In Article 21 it is stated that +Everyone has the right to freely
express thoughts in speech, writing, and by all other communication.; Also
that +The press may not be controlled by authorization or submitted to
censorship.; But this isn't quite so. There are "authorization" rules (as
well as other hindrances and privileges) that get in the way of freedom of
information and communication (generally defined as "freedom of the press"
ever since the concept was established in 1848 by the "Statuto Albertino" -
that in 1861 became the Constitution of what was, at the time, the Kingdom
of Italy.)
Within this framework, let's get to the specific case that has,
quite rightly, caused a wave of protest and indignation - and to the two
awkward laws that have made it possible. The facts are reported (not always
accurately) in several online documents. (see the end of the article)
A "criminal sentence" issued by a Court in Modica (Sicily) on 8 May 2008
condemned historian Carlo Ruta, defining his website "clandestine press"
because it wasn't formally "authorized" as a newspaper or a magazine. (The
site was no longer active. It had been "seized" by the
police, by order of the Modica Court, in 2004).
One of the absurdities in this Court decision is that the website
was defined as "testata giornalistica" because it had a "heading". By that
criterion, any publicly available correspondence written on "letterhead"
could be criminally condemned as "clandestine press".
I leave it to historians of law and politics to try to understand
why, when fascism had been defeated and censorship had been abolished, in
1948 a law was passed that restricts press freedom and is in contrast to
Article 21 of the Constitution.
But let me "try to guess" why in April 2001 the Italian government
proposed, and parliament "distractedly" approved, a poorly conceived (and
never properly amended) law that extends press regulation to online
communication.
All governments and all political parties and parliamentary groups
have always declared that they don't intend to limit or control in any way
the freedom of the press and, generally, of opinion. On the sincerity and
coherence of such statements we can have some doubts, but let's assume that
the purpose of the messy 2001 law was not censorship. The idea was to extend
to online newspapers and magazines the ambiguous "benefits" (subsidies) that
exists for print - as well as the "responsibility" controls (a system that
has already caused several distortions and manipulations in its
"traditional" definition).
This means that an online "newspaper" or "magazine" must be
"registered" as such - and the editor must be a member of an officially
regulated association called Ordine dei Giornalisti, a privileged "caste"
that many agree should be abolished, but in spite of its absurdity continues
to exist. The consequence is that, if the unclear text of the law is
interpreted extensively, approximately five million Italian websites could
be declared "illegal".
That law has been in existence for five years and there has been no
"extermination" of Italian online activity. But the fact remains that, by
this or other means, "errors" are possible. Several other flaws in law or
regulation have been used to "blacklist" or "seize" online activities that
were disliked by authorities or powerful private lobbies.
What makes the "Modica affair" unique is that, so far, it's the only
case of the 1948 "clandestine press" law and its 2001 extension being
applied to a website. Obviously protest and indignation must not relate only
to this individual case, but above all to its general implications.
The editor-owner of that website is not in jail. The "penalty" is a
250 euro fine, plus legal expenses. But obviously the problem is that, for
totally unacceptable reasons, he has a "criminal" record and his site has
disappeared.
It's rather nearsighted to be complaining about this episode after
having paid little attention to the fact that there is a nonsensical, and
never properly amended, law. And there are other situations of Italian, or
even foreign, websites being "removed" or made inaccessible, for a variety
of unreasonable motives, with a too easy "voluntary" cooperation of internet
providers who are more concerned with the protection of their business than
with the rights and privacy of their customers.
Why was there such a violent aggression on that particular website?
It's improper to "guess" making unproven assumptions. But the fact is that
the "cancelled" content was about collusion of politics with mafia -
probably irksome for some powerful interests. But let's assume, for the sake
of this argument, that it was only a "mistake" in the interpretation of an
unclear law. The fact remains that such "errors" are possible - and
unacceptable in a civilized country.
There are many "tricks" that make it possible to limit, though not
totally destroy, freedom of opinion and information.
There is, by the way, a not irrelevant "technical detail". It is
possible, by several different means, to make available online whatever has
been "prohibited". "Seizing" or "cancelling" has little, if any, effect on
criminals or other "wrongdoers". This sort of persecution is very painful
for honest people who want to freely express "uncomfortable" opinions,
irrelevant for the mischievous, ranging from the extreme of terrorism and
organized crime to all sorts of frauds and spamming.
In the (unproven) hypothesis of an absurd legal procedure being
influenced by someone who wants to remove uncomfortable information or
opinion, the irony is that it backfires, because the resulting "noise"
spreads more widely than the original source. But that, of course, doesn't
justify the perversity of the Court's decision or the clumsiness of the law.
It's hard to tell how much all this is caused by the ignorance of
"powerful" people who don't understand what the net is and how it works - or
by an insidious desire to repress freedom of opinion and control sources of
information. But the fact is that, no matter how disguised, repressive
intentions exist even in the most free and open societies - and watchdogs
need to be consistent over time, with constant observation of how things
evolve, not just short-lived "indignation" over an occasional episode, soon
to be forgotten while abuses continue. And we should never forget that
censorship isn't only evil, it is also stupid.
Cassandra (1996)
http://gandalf.it/free/casseng.htm
Bad legislation - again (05.2001)
http://gandalf.it/offline/off37-en.htm
Italy - blog condemned for clandestine press (only in Italian,16.06.2008)
http://punto-informatico.it/2321322/PI/News/italia-blog-condannato-stampa-cl...
"Clandestine press": an unacceptable decision (only in Italian, 9.09.2008)
http://www.mcreporter.info/stampa/c_ruta2.htm
Only a journalist can run a website in Italy? (21.05.2008)
http://blog.andreamonti.eu/?p=64
(Contribution by Giancarlo Livraghi - EDRi-member ALCEI Italy)
============================================================
9. Recommended Reading
============================================================
The Shape of Things to Come by Tony Bunyan
Seven years from 11 September 2001 and from the launch of the "war on
terorism" this major new report The Shape of Things to Come (60 pages)
examines the proposals of the Future Group and their effect on civil
liberties. It shows how European governments and EU policy-makers are
pursuing unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on
the everyday life of everyone - on the grounds that we can all be safe and
secure from perceived "threats".
The Statewatch report calls for a "meaningful and wide-ranging debate"
before it is "too late" for privacy and civil liberties.
Press release
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/the-shape-of-things-to-come-prel.pdf
Eight page Conclusions
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/sep/the-shape-of-things-to-come-conclusi...
Copy of full report (pdf)
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/the-shape-of-things-to-come.pdf
============================================================
10. Agenda
============================================================
24-28 September 2008, Athens, Greece
World Summit on the Knowledge Society
http://www.open-knowledge-society.org/summit.htm
30 September 2008, Vienna, Austria
Book launch and award presentation, quintessenz writing contest:
"At the end of the line" - a science fiction anthology pertaining
to civil rights, surveillance and data protection
http://sf.quintessenz.at/
11 October 2008, Worldwide
Action day "Freedom not fear"
Protests, demonstrations and activities against the surveillance mania
http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Freedom_Not_Fear_2008
13-15 October 2008, Strasbourg, France
First PrivacyOS "Open Space" Conference
EDRi is a partner of the PrivacyOS project - a thematic network for privacy
protection infrastructure within the current European Commission4s ICT
Policy Support Programme.
http://www.privacyos.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=3&Itemid=37
15-17 October 2008, Strasbourg, France
30th International Data Protection and Privacy Conference
http://www.privacyconference2008.org/
18 October 2008, Berne, Switzerland
Big Brother Awards Switzerland 2008
http://www.BigBrotherAwards.ch/
20-21 October 2008, Strasbourg, France
European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)
http://www.eurodig.org/
20-21 October 2008, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Marking the public domain: relinquishment & certification
Third Communia Workshop
http://communia-project.eu/node/109
21 October 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Workshop"International Transfers of Personal Data"
Organized by the European Commission with the Article 29 Data Protection
Working Party and the United States Department of Commerce's International
Trade Administration.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/events/news_events_en.htm#personal_dat...
24 October 2008, Bielefeld, Germany
Big Brother Awards Germany 2008
http://www.BigBrotherAwards.de/
25 October 2008, Vienna, Austria
Big Brother Awards Austria 2008
http://www.BigBrotherAwards.at/
3-6 December 2008, Hyderabad, India
Third Internet Governance Forum
http://www.intgovforum.org
9-10 December 2008, Madrid, Spain
Future Internet Assembly
http://www.future-internet.eu/home/future-internet-assembly/madrid-dec-2008....
http://www.fi-madrid.eu/
10-11 December 2008: Tilburg, Netherlands
Tilting perspectives on regulating technologies, Tilburg Institute for Law
and Technology, and Society, Tilburg University
http://www.tilburguniversity.nl/tilt/conference
27-30 December 2008 Berlin, Germany
25C3: Nothing to hide
The 25th Chaos Communication Congress
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/
18-20 March 2009, Athens, Greece
WebSci'09: Society On-Line
http://www.websci09.org/
============================================================
11. About
============================================================
EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 28 members based or with offices in 17 different
countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and
awareness through the EDRI-grams.
All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are
most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the
EDRI website.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea