From the digital civil rights point of view, hotlines run by private organizations, be they ISPs or NGOs, and their cooperation with the police to remove local content or block access to it when hosted on foreign websites, are breaching the rule of law in that the police acts as the judging power and ISPs as the executing power, as Joergensen exemplified with the Danish case. At the EU level, Marzouki showed how freedom of expression and creation, transparency and accountability, as well as the risk of massive over-blocking of legal content are at stake when courts are left outside the process. Other important issues were related to violations of due process and dual criminality rules and, in some cases, to the loss of evidence, which may result in preventing accurate investigations. ISP representatives backed to a large extent these deep concerns, with Lavigne discussing the efficiency of filtering, as well as its side effects mainly in terms of threats to freedom of expression, and Frank insisting on the

============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.13, 5 July 2006 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. Creative Communities and Consumers in TACD Conference 2. Terrorist Finance Tracking Program raises privacy questions 3. Private hotlines questioned at EC Safer Internet Forum 4. Dutch Parliament opposes the new EU IPR draft directive 5. German experts think search engines should be monitored 6. Swedish file-sharing damage insurance company expands 7. New French copyright law gives Apple satisfaction 8. Google's victory in court against German publisher 9. Consultation launched by UK government on the controversial RIPA act 10. IPRED Directive Implementation in Italy 11. News on CoE activities on Human Rights in the Information Society 12. Book launch on Human Rights in the Global Information Society 13. Recommended reading 14. Agenda 15. About ============================================================ 1. Creative Communities and Consumers in TACD Conference ============================================================ TACD (Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogues) organized a conference under the title "New Relationships Between Creative Communities and Consumers" in Paris on 19-20 June 2006. Participants represented a wide range of interests, including both artists' and consumers' organizations, but also WIPO and the European Commission. Several panels explored problems and possibilities in creators' and users' rights in fields as various as gene research, drug development, software production, entertainment industry, documentary films and scholarly publishing. The breadth of discussion and ideas presented was impressive. One recurring theme was that creators and users of intellectual works are not necessarily enemies; their interests are more common than conflicting. Indeed often they are the same people: professional creators need to be able to use earlier creations, and in the networked world consumers are increasingly also creators. As concerns the software development there was a strong opposition to software patents and support for open standards, especially for interfaces and file formats needed for interoperability. The dangers of monopolies and the importance of free software were stressed, especially for basic functionality. Regarding the entertainment industry (music and film), there was a surprisingly strong consensus that some kind of flat rate and global licensing system for file sharing and downloading would be a good thing and that time has come for it. Nonetheless, it was noted there are still lots of technical and legal problems to be solved. Scholarly publishing was also debated, observing that the present system serves mainly the interests of publishers, not those of creators or users who are indeed mainly the same people - scientists. A draft document called "Paris accord" containing a collection of suggestions on how the various issues should be addressed was circulated and discussed. The treaty could give directions for the creation of a DRM-free new music industry that would be beneficial for both artists and consumers. However, the document remained a draft as there was no real attempt to finalize it during the conference. There was an agreement, however, that something like it would be necessary and that work would continue although no deadline was decided on its completion Paris TACD conference - Neil Leyton report (29.06.2006) http://www.p2pnet.net/story/9217 TACD Workshop - the Paris Accord - 19-20 June 2006 http://www.cptech.org/a2k/pa/ "New Relationships Between Creative Communities and Consumers" - TACD Conference http://www.tacd.org/docs/?id=296 (Contribution by Tapani Tarvainen - EDRi-member Electronic Frontier Finland) ============================================================ 2. Terrorist Finance Tracking Program raises privacy questions ============================================================ On 22-23 June 2006, the New York Times published a story uncovering an international financial surveillance programme, called Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, run by the US authorities. After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the US Treasury Department and/or CIA starting getting access to international transfer data, available in the SWIFT database, in order to investigate terrorist activity. The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) is a Belgian-based industry-owned co-operative that supplies a messaging infrastructure to the global banking community. This 'community' consists of banks, brokers and dealers, investment managers and their market infrastructures in payments, securities, treasury and trade. SWIFT provides messaging services and interface software to more than 7,863 financial institutions in 204 countries and territories. SWIFT's activities is overseen primarily by the National Bank of Belgium, though other central banks are said to "have a legitimate interest in, or responsibility for, the oversight of SWIFT, given SWIFT's role in their domestic systems." Therefore it has international oversight in co-operation with G-10 central banks. After11 September 2001 SWIFT responded to some very broad US subpoenas. SWIFT had considered at the time that it could not provide individualised searches of the information and it had offered the U.S. Government access to all transaction records. This has been a situation going on since then and the financial authorities examined tens of thousands of confidential financial transactions. The Secretary for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey confirmed that the Treasury Department had subpoenaed records on terrorist-related transactions from SWIFT. He reported that the legal basis was "routine and absolutely clear". Some US Representatives asked US Department of Justice to investigate the New York Times for its actions for violating the Espionage Act and other related federal statutes. The European Commission said it had no jurisdiction over the transfer of financial data to non-EU countries such as the US, considering that this was a problem for the national legislation. Friso Abbing, EU spokesman on justice and home affairs, stated that the European Union remained concerned that civil liberties were being overlooked in the name of combating terrorism: "Everyone agrees that in the fight against terrorism we do need to have measures against the funding of terrorism. But the emphasis is that this must be done with full respect in the respect of data privacy." The Belgium government said that they were investigating the legality of the searches. Prime-Minister Guy Verhofstadt stated that they needed to determine if the rights of Belgium nationals and the Belgium Law have been respected during this process within SWIFT. The National Bank of Belgium acknowledged that it knew of the transfers and The European Central Bank and the Bank of England were also aware that customers' payment data were being accessed by US authorities. There are serious privacy concerns that this classified program might also be a violation of U.S. and European financial privacy laws, because individual search warrants to access financial data were not obtained in advance. Privacy International (PI) lists a number of inconsistencies with this program, including the US claims that this is a narrowly focused programme that is compliant with the law, while the Belgian Government has concerns that the data is accessed without authorisation by a Belgian judge. Or that, as with most cases of international co-operation, the country seizing the data, i.e. the U.S., is claiming universal jurisdiction while the regime responsible for protecting the data, the EU, is disavowing any responsibility. PI launched on 28 June 2006 an international campaign against the SWIFT illeagal activities. They have filed simultaneous complaints with Data Protection and Privacy regulators in 33 countries, considering that the activity was undertaken without regard to legal process under Data Protection law, and that the disclosures were made without any legal basis or authority whatever. The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorised investigation. Pulling a Swift one? Bank transfer information sent to U.S. authorities (27.06.2006) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-538978 PI launches campaign to suspend unlawful activities of finance giant (28.06.2006) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-538985 PI Complaint: Transfer of personal data from SWIFT to the U.S. Government (27.06.2006) http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/swiftlettercampaign.pdf Belgian leader orders bank inquiry (26.06.2006) http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/26/news/intel.php NY Times accused of treason ( 26.06.2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/06/26/nyt_on_the_job/ Belgium probes US bank record searches(26.06.2006) http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=bankingFinancial&sto ryID=nL26722895 European Central Bank knew about US data access (29.06.2006) http://euobserver.com/9/21984 Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication - SWIFT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telec ommunication (Thanks to Gus Hosein - Privacy International) ============================================================ 3. Private hotlines questioned at EC Safer Internet Forum ============================================================ With its newly adopted Communication on a 'comprehensive EU strategy to promote and safeguard the rights of the child', the Commission intends to pursue its global action on children's rights. One may however wonder whether the strategy for fighting child porn on the Internet, which mostly relies on private hotlines, is really efficient and compliant with the rule of law. These were the main issues raised at the afternoon session of the EC Safer Internet Forum 2006, held in Luxembourg on 21 June, on 'Illegal Content: Blocking access to child sexual abuse images'. Following the invitation of the organizers, Rikke Frank Joergensen (Digital Rights Denmark) and Meryem Marzouki (Imaginons un rC)seau Internet solidaire, IRIS - France) represented EDRI. Other speakers were two representatives of private hotlines, Helena KarlC)n (ECPAT Sweden) and Peter Robbins (UK Internet Watch Foundation - IWF) and two representatives of ISPs, BenoC.t Lavigne (French ISP Association, AFA) and Sabine Frank (German Search Engine Providers, FSM). The discussion was introduced by Ola-Kristian Off (Norwegian lawyer and former ICRA European Director) and moderated by Richard Swetenham (Head of the eContent and Safer Internet Unit, EC DG INFSO). transparency issue. Despite all these risks, private hotlines representatives are pushing hard towards generalizing blocking of access, as already practiced on a large scale in 4 European countries. The UK and the 3 Scandinavian countries are using blocking systems like British Telecom 'Cleanfeed' (recently analyzed by Richard Clayton from EDRI member FIPR - UK), or the Swedish company 'Netclean Technologies' products and the blocking system of the Danish Telecom operator TDC. KarlC)n even proposed to interconnect hotlines all around the world following the SETI@Home project, and to set up an international database of URL blacklists. Showing how IWF is cooperating with other hotlines, ISPs and the police, Robbins said that IWF intends to share its databases with other members of the Inhope network. He also mentioned that IWF is currently sharing its blacklists with its members, while licensing them to non IWF members. The latter information made Marzouki wonder during the discussion whether these practices could lead on the one hand to commercial business, like we have witnessed content rating bureaus selling services, and on the other hand to a 'least common denominator' strategy to define illegal content throughout the world, and at least in Europe, without any court intervention. Other participants to the Forum took the floor to raise the issue of privacy: when tentative access is made to blocked content, what happens with the personal data of individuals requesting these URLs, some indeed on purpose, but some others only incidentally, without any intention to access child porn content? Despite the conclusions on the need for more hotline transparency, the Safer Internet Forum 2006 clearly showed that civil liberty organizations must remain very vigilant against the risk of worldwide interconnection of blacklists and massive content blocking, without any sound legal decision. RAPID: 'Commission launches comprehensive EU strategy to promote and safeguard the rights of the child' (04.07.06) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/927 EC Safer Internet Forum 2006 (21.06.06) http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum_june_ 2006/agenda Rikke Frank Joergensen: 'Blocking access to child pornography. The Danish Case' (21.06.2006) http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_june_2006 /rikke_frank_joergenseng.pdf Meryem Marzouki: 'Five Little Questions About Blocking Access to Child Porn Images' (21.06.2006) http://www-polytic.lip6.fr/article.php3?id_article=144 Richard Clayton: 'Failures in a Hybrid Content Blocking System' (1.06.2005) http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf (Contribution by Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS) ============================================================ 4. Dutch Parliament opposes the new EU IPR draft directive ============================================================ The Dutch Parliament stated on 28 June 2006 that the European Commission has no competence to propose a new directive that is focusing on criminalizing intellectual property offences. The statement refers to a new draft directive - Directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, 2005/0127 - revived by the European Commission at the beginning of May 2006. The Parliament also said that the Commission should present concrete evidence why such a directive is needed, considering that the European body should show why the measures are essential for the good functioning of the single market. Also it considers that the directive might harmonise some penalties, but the exchange of information among member states would be a much more effective solution. The conclusion of the text adressed to Mr. Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, and adopted by the Dutch Parliament states that: "Both Houses of the States-General conclude that no power has been granted to the Community in respect of the aim of the proposed action. Nonetheless, both Houses have b for the record b scrutinised the present proposal by reference to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and concluded that the proposal does not comply with them." Commenting the decision of the Parliament, FFII analyst Ante Wessels notes that : "The European Commission and the member states are now in the process of circumscribing competence: How far can the Commission go? In this power struggle the Dutch Parliament made its statement: the Commission went much too far. Earlier Dutch minister of Justice Donner had already stated he was not 'pleased'." Letter of Dutch Parliament to Mr. Frattini (3.07.2006) English Version http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/... g7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fvdga1qw French Version http://europapoort.eerstekamer.nl/9310000/1/j9tvgajcovz8izf_j9vvgbwoimqf9iv/... g7slw5im1tl?key=vhc0fy66g2qw Dutch Parliament says No to European criminal law against IP violations (3.07.2006) http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredNlParl060629En IP Enforcement Directive 2: European Community goes criminal http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2060510En EDRi-gram : EU moves to criminalise IP offences (10.05.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.9/ipcriminal ============================================================ 5.German experts think search engines should be monitored ============================================================ During the workshop "The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media Policy, and Media Business" that took place in Berlin on 26-27 June 2006, the experts expressed the opinion that the search engines should be more regulated. Marcel Machill, a lecturer in journalism at Germany's Leipzig and Dortmund universities stated that Google along with Yahoo and MSN were the main source of information searches for 90% of the Germans, Google alone accounting for 70%. He expressed serious concern related to the power of the search engines that would be unconceivable in the classic media. Machill as well as other experts considers Google should have the same responsibility as other publishers not to allow access to illegal sites, such as those with neo-Nazi content or x-rated ones and that mechanisms must be created to protect children online and to address illegal content. "Even if not targeted directly, browsing, surfing, or following suggestions from search engines may lead to material containing unwanted, troublesome, offensive, as well as surprising or amusing material. To be able to profit from this opportunity, while still allowing for the protection of children and for selective approaches to information gathering and communication, is one of the most important tasks in further developing the internet." said Machill. Machill also added that last year, the German subsidiaries of search engine operators agreed to voluntarily filter sites with x-rated content or those that incite to violence out of their results lists and that the Government had to know how the search companies operate and had to regulate them if necessary. However, according to Norbert Schneider, director of the North Rhine Westphalia, the voluntary obligation to filter sites will have no effect considering it just a "weak regulation without any sanctions". Machill also suggested the foundation of a public corporation in Europe to counterbalance the power of the US search engines. Google's position was expressed by public relations head Rachel Whetstone who reaffirmed that the search engine was no newspaper or broadcasting company and that they only applied an algorithm. She also stated that while Google observed the local laws regarding the results displayed, they did not wish to be the ones to decide on what people were supposed to see or not. The Rising Power of Search-Engines on the Internet: Impacts on Users, Media Policy, and Media Business http://www.uni-leipzig.de/journalistik/suma/home_e.html German Experts Criticize Google's Power (28.06.2006) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071471,00.html German experts want search engines to be monitored (30.06.2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/06/30/google_too_powerful/ ============================================================ 6. Swedish company offers file-sharing damage insurance ============================================================ Swedish company Tankafritt offers insurance against file sharing law suits damages and intends to expand to other Scandinavian countries. Magnus Brath, the owner of the company, found it in reaction to the recent copyright infringement cases in Sweden. He also thinks he could develop his business in countries like Norway and Denmark where there are similar laws on file-sharing. His company is a small one operating on membership basis. For about 15 euro/year the members are covered in case RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) asks for damages for copyright infringement.. According to Slyck.com, the probability of being sued by RIAA is 1:1,840, a ration that is lower than that of dying from external causes which is 1:1,755, according to the US National Safety Council. Considering these figures, the Tankafritt operation has all the chances of being a success. While in UK such a system would not be considered legal as states the Association of British Insurers, in Sweden, where there is a political party for the relaxation of the intellectual property controls, the cause of file sharers is very much supported. A large controversy has been created recently by a raid on servers hosting the Pirate Bay site as the raid has apparently put some legal business offline as well. File sharing damages insurer plans international expansion (3.07.2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/07/03/filesharing_damages_insurer/ P2P insurer will pay your fines if RIAA sues: $19/year! (28.06.2006) http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/28/p2p_insurer_will_pay.html RIAA's Grand Total: 10,037 - What are Your Odds? (2.05.2006) http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=769 EDRI-gram : Swedish torrent website Pirate Bay returns back home (21.06.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.12/piratebay ============================================================ 7. New French copyright law gives Apple satisfaction ============================================================ The most controversial DADVSI Law, now colloquially known also as "iTunes Law", was finally adopted in the French Parliament with a compromise allowing Apple to continue operating as before. The law was adopted by the Parliament under emergency regime, which ended with a mixed commission, normally made of 7 senators and 7 deputies, from both the majority and the opposition. But the opposition left the commission, after 55 more amendments were brought to it by the rapporteurs at the very final step The most controversial provision was that of interoperability. In a previous draft, the law imposed measures to allow interoperability, obliging thus Apple to give up its DRM system that made "iTunes" products strictly related to i-Pods. Apple reacted virulently, accusing of "state sponsored piracy" and threatening to leave France altogether in case the law was passed as such. The law as adopted now allows for the DRM and redefines the concept of interoperability. The text provides for the protection of "the technical measures meant to prevent or limit non-authorised use" and the fines for breaking these systems have remained at the level of 3 750 euro. The producers, distributors or promoters of technical solutions avoiding these systems can get up to 6 months of imprisonment and 30 000 euro fines. Interoperability is redefined in the sense that the text now reads: the technical measures (meant to protect the works) must not result in impeding interoperability, while observing copyright. Still stating that all systems must interoperate, the new law allows, however, for this requirement to be waived with the permission of the rights holders. It actually means that Apple can continue to operation in the same way as before with the permission of record labels and artists, only the balance of power between Apple and the labels may shift more towards the latter. The idea of creating a group of mediators to deal with private copy conflicts was changed to that of establishing a regulator of technical measures as an independent authority. The regulator will be responsible with seeing that the DRM systems do not create additional limitations in the use of artistic works to those explicitly expressed by the copyright holders. The law covers only software and technical systems producers without saying anything about consumer associations or the open source creators. The socialist deputies have already announced their intention to contest the text of the law at the Constitutional Court. Dadvsi draft finaly adopted by the Parliament (in French only, 30.06.2006) http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/internet/0,39020774,39361945,00.htm?xtor=1 France dilutes plans for iTunes law (26.06.2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/06/26/france_dilutes_itunes_law/ Zut! France drops iTunes bombshell (30.06.2006) http://www.theregister.com/2006/06/30/france_itunes_law_loophole/ Compromise on copyright (in French only, 23.06.2006) http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-651865,36-787328@51-787425,0.html EDRI-gram : French draft copyright law continues to be criticised (24.05.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/frenchcopyright ============================================================ 8. Google's victory in court against German publisher ============================================================ Google has just obtained a significant victory against the German publisher Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (WBG), having asked an injunction in a German court to stop the giant from scanning books in its Books Library project. WBG dropped their case on 28 June after the judge told them they had poor chances in winning. Although backed by the German publishers associations, the publisher failed to bring arguments in support of its action and the court ruled that there was no copyright violation resulting from the development of Google's project. Google has undertaken to digitize library books and place the contents on its search engine working within this process with six US libraries and one in Oxford. The books that are out of copyright will be accessed without any restrictions while books that are found to be covered by copyright are only presented with bibliographic data and a few snippets. However, even for a copyrighted book, Google has to scan the entire book in order to create the index used for its search engine. The German publisher wanted to stop Google from scanning copyrighted books without permission but the court admitted Google's argument that the publishing of short snippets did not infringe the German copyright law. To make thinks even more complicated, Google considers that the action of copying a book is covered by the copyright law of the country where the book is copied and not by that of the country where the book publisher is. Therefore if it scans a book from a US library is has to comply to US copyright laws. But Germany is not the only country where the giant faces opposition to this project. The French group La Martiniere is also suing Google for "counterfeiting and breach of intellectual property rights" as reported by Agency France-Presse. France's National Publishers' Union, representing over 400 publishers, has also threatened to take Google to court and publishers in UK have expressed opposition to the project as well. Google faces two lawsuits in the United States from author and publisher groups on the same issue. After the court ruling on 28 June, Google stated that they recognised the importance of the copyright law as they considered that authors and publishers were entitled to be rewarded for their creations. Google also believes the project would also serve authors and publishers as their books will be easily searchable on the search engine and it will also be easy for the users to buy them. David Drummond, senior vice president also expressed the dedication of the company to the project. "Google is passionate about the digitization of books, which we believe benefits everyone by making the world's knowledge more accessible". Legal victory for Google in library project (29.06.2006) http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1808770,00.html Partial Success for Google in a German Courtroom (29.06.2006) http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2073046,00.html Google Book project gets reprieve in Germany (29.06.2006) http://news.com.com/2061-10812_3-6089897.html ============================================================ 9. Consultation launched by UK government on the controversial RIPA act ============================================================. UK government has launched a consultation on codes of practice covering the implementation of its communications surveillance laws that, lately, have been largely debated on by privacy campaigners, internet service providers as well as security specialists. The UK Government has launched a public consultation on Part I and III of The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) Chapter II giving increased power to public authorities in their access to citizens' communications data. The Home Office has published draft codes of practice for both parts of the act for a 12-week consultation period, stating that the present text has been modified to take into consideration the current practices, to reduce bureaucracy and to deal with concerns expressed in relation to data protection. It also stated that additional elements have been added where the original draft was lacking in sufficient guidance. Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), allowing the police to ask for the disclosure of encryption keys or force suspects to decrypt encrypted data has not yet been implemented but the government considers time has come for it. The arguments relate to the rapid development of encryption products and the increased availability to such products including integrated security features in operating systems. Comments on the two draft codes are expected by 30 August. Government launches new data retention consultation (20.06.2006) http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/06/20/216510/Government+launches +new+data+retention+consultation.htm EDRI-gram: UK Government asks for the encryption keys (24.05.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.10/ukencryption Acquisition and Disclosure of Communication Data - A public consultation http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/351628/ripa-part1.pdf?view=Binary ============================================================ 10. IPRED Directive Implementation in Italy ============================================================. By Legislative Decree no.140 of 16 March 2006, with more than one month before the deadline, Italy implemented Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED) by amending law no.633/1941, which has already been the subject of so many modifications since its inception that several parties are calling for its complete re-drafting. The most notable modifications to the Italian copyright law include the presumption of ownership of the neighbouring rights, as it was already the case for author's rights; the possibility for collective and "representative" organizations to independently promote judicial actions in order to defend their members' rights; the possibility to ask judges to inhibit activities, including those by intermediaries, that can be construed as an infringement of authors' or neighbouring rights; the possibility for judges in the case of infringement "on a commercial scale"- on request of the interested party - to order banking, financial and other commercial data to be produced by the counterpart; a more detailed procedure to calculate damages. Some of the modifications were not so relevant, as the Italian judges have already applied the same principles as a matter of custom and practice. For example the Italian criminal procedures already contained norms that allow a judge to apply a sanction in case a party delays of fails to put a writ in practice. Or the so-called "right of information", by which a judge can request third parties to produce relevant information they might have with regards to an infringement. The Italian implementation of IPRED has been severely criticized, among others by Andrea Monti of ALCEI (Associazione per la Liberta` nella Comunicazione Elettronica Interattiva - EDRi-member). In an article published on the Italian journal "InterLex", Monti considered that the Legislative Decree is too vague in its key parts - including the definition of what is an "intermediary" and the type of evidences that must be produced in order for a judicial injunction to be issued. Text of Legislative Decree no. 140/16 March 2006 (only in Italian, 16.03.2006) http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/guri/attocompleto?dataGazzetta=2006-04-07&re dazione=006G0161&service=0&ConNote=2 http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/testi/06140dl.htm Andrea Monti, Copyright - a "particular" and "concrete" law (only in Italian, 23.02.2006) http://www.interlex.it/copyright/amonti84.htm Explanatory report on the Italian implementation of IPRED (only in Italian) http://www.interlex.it/testi/pdf/rec482004.pdf EDRI-gram: New Italian IT legislation limits civil rights (1.03.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.4/italianlaws (Contribution by Andrea Glorioso, consultant on digital policies - Italy) (Thanks to Ms. De Angelis - DDA Law Firm ) =========================================================== 11. News on CoE activities on Human Rights in the Information Society =========================================================== On 20 June, Rikke Frank Joergensen (Digital Rights Denmark) and Meryem Marzouki (Imaginons un rC)seau Internet solidaire, IRIS - France) participated as EDRI observers to the 5th Council of Europe meeting of the Group of Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS). Among the many points on the agenda, the following news are worth reporting at this step. The draft Recommendation on empowering children in the new information and communications environment has been submitted to the CoE Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), where some member states (France, Germany, Russia) expressed their willing to make further comments before having it adopted. EDRI previously reported on the important changes made to this document by MC-S-IS group. The group received information on CoE follow-up to the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This concerns action line C8 on bCultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local contentb, C9 on bMediab and C10 on bThe ethical dimension of the Internetb, as well as the Internet Governance Forum, which will hold its first meeting in Athens, 30 October to 2 November 2006. EDRI proposed stronger cooperation between CoE and human rights groups, i.e. through common workshops at the Forum. The group was also informed that a new CoE Ad Hoc Committee on e- democracy (CAHDE) was created, in the framework of the CoE project on bGood governance in the information societyb. The CAHDE mandate, which runs until December 2007, is inter alia to bexamine developments on e-democracy/e-participation at European and international level, with a view to identifying political, social, ethical, legislative and technological issues and their interdependenceb. Its first meeting will be held in September 2006. While there is no observer status for NGOs non member of the CoE Conference of INGOs, EDRI insisted on the need to associate NGOs directly involved in these issues to the CAHDE works. Given the very few (less than 15) answers received so far to the questionnaire on the implementation by member States of the 2003 Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet, EDRI proposed that a European compliance study/mapping based on the Declaration be rather commissioned by the group. Finally, the second CoE Pan-European Forum on Human Rights in the Information Society will be held in Erevan on 5-6 October 2006, on the main theme of bEmpowering children and young peopleb. EDRi-Gram : CoE Works On New Instrument On Children Empowerment On The Net (15.03.06) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe CoE MC-S-IS public website http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co-operation/M... -S-IS/ WSIS follow-up action lines and Internet governance forum http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/ http://www.intgovforum.org/ CAHDE draft terms of reference https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec(2006)965/2.3&Sector=secCM (Contribution by Rikke Frank Joergensen and Meryem Marzouki, EDRI- members Digital Rights Denmark and IRIS) =========================================================== 12. Book launch on Human Rights in the Global Information Society =========================================================== A new book on Human Rights in the Global Information Society, edited by Rikke Frank JC8rgensen (EDRI board member from Digital Rights DK) was presented 23 June 2006 in Copenhagen. In the book, a number of scholars, human rights activists and practitioners examine the links between information and communication technology (ICT) and human rights, exploring the ways in which the information society can either advance human rights around the world or threaten them. This includes issues such as freedom of expression, access to information, privacy, discrimination, freedom of assembly, political participation, gender equality, minority rights, and intellectual property. The book was produced during the World Summit of the Information Society process (2003-2005), and the Introduction examines how human rights were dealt with within this global ICT policy process. Following the presentation of the book, Gus Hosein from Privacy International / LSE and author of the book chapter on Privacy, gave a keynote on 'Privacy, Terrorism and the New Security Agenda'. In his presentation, Hosein illustrated with current examples how privacy rights are being eroded, not least in a European context, and how the policy dynamics of the 'new security agenda' stretches beyond terrorism into other parts of our daily lives. He also addressed the intimate link between privacy and other human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, and stressed the need for more concerted civil society actions in Europe on these issues. Human Rights in the Global Information Society http://www.mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 Danish Human Rights Institute http://www.humanrights.dk Digital Rights Denmark http://www.digitalrights.dk Danish WSIS network http://www.una.dk/wsis (Contribution by Rikke Frank JC8rgensen - EDRi-member Digital Rights Denmark) =========================================================== 13. Recommanded Reading =========================================================== Michelle Child - Notes of Barcelona Conference "The Proposed WIPO Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations: From the Rome Convention to Podcasting" - 21 June 2006 http://downontheriver.blogspot.com/2006/06/notes-of-wipo-barcelona-seminar.h tml Report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2005 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/jun/EU-funrights-report05.pdf European Commission opened an online public consultation on radio frequency identification (RFID) http://www.rfidconsultation.eu/ Read also the consultation background paper http://www.rfidconsultation.eu/docs/ficheiros/Your_voice_on_RFID.pdf =========================================================== 14. Agenda =========================================================== 7 July 2006, Zurich, Switzerland Free cultures - a Free Internet. Internet Governance and Switzerland Who is supposed to govern the internet? A symposium on the "Internet Governance Forum" will be looking for the answers. http://www.igf-06.ch 16 - 28 July 2006, Oxford, UK Annenberg/Oxford Summer Institute: Global Media Policy: Technology and New Themes in Media Regulation http://www.pgcs.asc.upenn.edu/events/ox06/index.php 2-4 August 2006, Bregenz, Austria 2nd International Workshop on Electronic Voting 2006 http://www.e-voting.cc/stories/1246056/ 3 August 2006 , Prague, Czech Republic Travelers privacy and EU - One day seminar organized by Iuridicum Remedium, providing a space for privacy experts to meet Czech officials to discuss passports, biometrics, RFID, PNR deal and other issues related to privacy risks possibly encountered by travellers in the EU. http://www.bigbrotherawards.cz/en/index.html 14-16 September 2006, Berlin, Germany Wizards of OS 4 Information Freedom Rules http://wizards-of-os.org/ =========================================================== 15. About =========================================================== EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 21 members from 14 European countries and 5 observers from 5 more countries (Italy, Ireland, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia). 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 <edrigram@edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request@edri.org Subject: subscribe You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request@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 - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram@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 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]