============================================================ EDRi-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 6.23, 3 December 2008 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. Changes in the telecom package adopted by the Council 2. French EDVIGE decree withdrawn 3. Effects of counter-terrorism legislation on freedom of the media 4. Sweden on the verge of passing the local IPRED law 5. Turkey: Another blocking order against YouTube 6. Ireland proposes to legalise covert surveillance 7. UK rejected data breach notification law 8. Parliaments seem to use very little IT technology 9. Recommended Action 10. Recommended Reading 11. Agenda 12. About ============================================================ 1. Changes in the telecom package adopted by the Council ============================================================ A political agreement on the telecom package was reached by the EU Council on 27 November 2008. Even though the final text does not support the 3 strikes measures proposed by the French Presidency, it has also deleted some important amendments adopted by the European Parliament in order to safeguard the citizen's fundamental rights. Austria and Denmark have spoken up for keeping the Amendment 138 during the Council meeting. Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland joined them in an attempt to provide safeguards for users in the event of any attempts to sanction them or restrict their access to content on the Internet. They asked the exclusion of any issues related to copyright enforcement and the promotion of creative content instead. But in the end, the Council decided the deletion of this amendment, the only pretext expressed being that the wording was too broad. The new text of the modified Universal Services Directive allows the national regulatory authorities to "promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and the sectors interested in the promotion of lawful content in electronic communication networks and services." The adopted recitals makes it clear that any cooperation procedures will not allow for systematic Internet monitoring and that the Member States, and not the electronic communication providers, have to "decide, in accordance with due process, whether content, applications or services are lawful or harmful or not." The decision of the Telecom Council to reject the 3 strike scheme, comes after the EU culture ministers took a similar decision on 20 November. They also suggested promoting legal offers of music or films on the Internet. The EU Culture Council considered that "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" needs to be establishedwhile fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property". In fact, the Commission has already sent a number of critical comments on the French draft law on 3 strikes, suggesting a long series of changes in order to comply with the European legislation. The text adopted by the European Telecom Council is not so positive from the privacy point of view. Thus, the Council has rejected the suggestion of the Parliament to allow a study on Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and their use that should have been promoted by the Commission. The Council has decided to keep Art 6 par 6 (formerly amendment 181 adopted by the European Parliament) that has been interpreted as an open door for voluntary data retention. Thus, the German actions to push for the rejection of the amendment 181 in the Telecom Council did not found a majority, despite the public position of the German federal minister of economic affairs Michael Glos. He agreed with a number of civil society representatives that this amendment "would create unmanageable data dumps and thus expose sensitive data on our communications and movements to risks of abuse." The Telecom Council has taken the European Commission's point of view in restricting the obligation for personal data breach notification only for electronic communication providers, thus excluding the Parliament amendment that extended this provision also to "any company operating on the Internet, providing services to consumers, which is the data controller and provider of information society services." The Council has also limited the number of cases when the notification to the competent Authority and affected individuals is mandatory only in cases representing "a serious risk for subscriber's privacy." This common position adopted by the Telecom Council is a base for new negotiations between EU Bodies, that could meetthis month. Also, a new informal meeting of the Telecom ministers is already scheduled on 17 February. The second reading of the European Parliament on the agreed text could take place at the beginning of 2009. 2907th Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council meeting (provisional version) - (27.11.2008) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_applications/Applications/newsRoom/LoadDocument.asp?directory=en/trans/&filename=104387.pdf European Council - Reviewed ePrivacy Directive (27.11.2008) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st15/st15896.en08.pdf European Council - Reviewed Universal Service Directive (27.11.2008) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st15/st15899.en08.pdf Federal government supports opposition against "voluntary data retention" (25.11.2008) http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/280/79/lang,en/ EU states bin telecoms 'super-regulator' idea (27.11.2008) http://euobserver.com/19/27192 Citizen safeguards striked out in EU Council (26.11.2008) http://www.laquadrature.net/en/citizen-safeguards-striked-out-in-EU-council Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland - only EU members on the same page vis-a-vis Internet content control (1.12.2008) http://blog.veni.com/?p=898 European Council opposes Parliament on Amendment 138 (27.11.2008) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=212&Itemid=9 EU ministers reject ban on free downloading (21.11.2008) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-ministers-reject-ban-free-download... Denmark and Austria speak up for citizens rights (27.11.2008) http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=211&Itemid=9 Commission response to France's obligation of notification for its "graduated response" law (only in French, 27.11.2008) http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises/communication/telecom-internet/20081127t... EDRi-gram: Data breach notification - different opinions in EU bodies? (19.11.2008) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.22/data-breach-ec ============================================================ 2. French EDVIGE decree withdrawn ============================================================ It seems the demonstrations that took place on 16 October against the EDVIGE decree have found an echo with the French authorities. The French Government has finally withdrawn the EDVIGE file after a very strong mobilisation of the citizens through the "No to EDVIGE" group that gathered several associations and unions, including EDRi-member IRIS (Imaginons un Riseau Internet Solidaire). The withdrawal of the decree is different from the abrogation in the sense that the withdrawal has a retroactive character meaning that all the information gathered since the creation of EDVIGE 1.0 has to be destroyed. The RG file, introduced in 1991, previous to EDVIGE, will remain valid until 31 December 2009 but no information will be added to it starting with 1 July 2008. However, the liberty advocates and associations are still vigilant and stay careful while waiting for the occurrence of the newly envisaged file called EDVIRSP which has not yet been published. The new version which should exclude the collection of personal data related to health, sexuality or data on personalities or minors below 13 is now with the French Data Protection Authority - CNIL (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertis) before being sent to the State Council. IRIS and the rest of the "No to EDVIGE" group are still concerned by some of the issues of the new version such as the creation of a file based on suspicions and not facts, the collection of data related to religious beliefs, ethnical origin, union membership, political opinions as well as data on minors older than 13. So, for the time being, before the issue of a new file, the data already collected for the withdrawn EDVIGE file cannot be used which means that the police cannot gather data at this point. However, there are concerns that, in this case, the police will use other sources such as Cristina, a similar file to EDVIGE, which is a defence classified file that can provide the legal basis for the collection of data. "We are now under a legal blur and this blur is never favourable to liberties' said Helhne Masse-Dessen, lawyer of "No to EDVIGE" group. IRIS Press release on the withdrawal of EDVIGE1.0 - First citizen victory but vigilance stays in place (only in French, 20.11.2008) http://www.iris.sgdg.org/info-debat/comm-edvige1108.html Decree no. 2008-1199 of 19 November 2008 on the withdrawal of decree no. 2008-632 of 27 June 2008 on the creation of automatic treatment of personal data called EDVIGE (only in French, 21.11.2008) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000019774085 Withdraw EDVIGE1.0 team Press Release - + No to EDVIGE ; team congratulates itself but stays mobilized (only in French, 21.11.2008) http://nonaedvige.ras.eu.org/spip.php?article920 The Edvige file officially withdrawn but not yet replaced (only in French, 21.11.2008) http://www.lesechos.fr/info/france/4800116-le-fichier-edvige-officiellement-... The Edvige file officially withdrawn, the opponents stay "vigilant" (only in French, 20.11.2008) http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gRs-meyd--OCvfnMRd3rHruoH... EDRi-gram: Protests in France against the Edvige file on St. Edwige day (22.10.2008) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.20/edvige-saint-edwige-day ============================================================ 3. Effects of counter-terrorism legislation on freedom of the media ============================================================ A new report conducted by Privacy International (PI) for the Council of Europe Media and Information Society Division reveals effects of new counter-terrorism laws on media and free expression rights in European countries. The report "Speaking of Terror" examines how the "war on terror" has affected access to information, the growth of incitement, glorification and "extremism" restrictions on speech, blocking of internet sites, increased surveillance of journalists and limits on protection of journalists' sources. The report finds that the laws have already seriously affected freedom of expression while providing little benefit in fighting terrorism. The report also examines the roles of the United Nations Security Council, European Union and Council of Europe in promoting new laws while paying little attention to human rights. The findings of the study reveal that international bodies including the Council of Europe (CoE) and the European Union (EU) have adopted many international agreements that either ignore or only pay scant attention to fundamental human rights and the importance of a free media. Their agendas are often driven by those countries that are most aggressive in adopting expansive counter-terrorism laws including the UK, US and Russia. The role of European institutions such as the EU and the CoE have resulted in greater adoption and harmonization of these laws than most other regions. New laws on prohibiting speech that is considered "extremist" or supporting of terrorism have been a particular problem. These laws are used in many jurisdictions to suppress political and controversial speech. Newspapers have been closed and journalists arrested. Web sites are often taken down or blocked. State secret and national security laws are regularly being used against journalists and their sources even as access to information laws are widely accepted and adopted across the CoE. Protection of journalists' sources are often undermined by governments seeking to identify officials who provide information. Even the protection is widely recognized both in national laws and in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. New anti-terrorism laws are giving authorities wide powers to conduct surveillance. Other new laws impose technical and administrative requirements on the ability to intercept communications and keeping information. Of particular concern are data retention laws which require the routine surveillance of all mobile and Internet users that can be used to easily identify sources and journalists' investigations. Speaking of Terror: A survey of the effects of counter-terrorism legislation on freedom of the media in Europe http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/speakingofterror.pdf ============================================================ 4. Sweden on the verge of passing the local IPRED law ============================================================ The Sweden Government is to pass these days a controversial law that might give the entertainment industry some tools to track down those that illegally share copyrighted material on the Internet. The law, which is based on the European Union's Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED), has been under debate for more than a year and claims to be essential by the Swedish industry which complains that, presently, Sweden lacks the necessary legislation to support them: " Swedish laws are considered something of a joke and our politicians are viewed as arrogant for not taking this seriously. Sweden has the worst laws in this area and, consequently, the worst problems with piracy. It is embarrassing that Sweden has waited so long to put in place a directive that was implemented long ago by our European neighbours." says a letter addressed to the Swedish Government by the director and producers of the Swedish movie "Let The Right One In". The law, which is planned to come into force on 1 April 2009, would make it possible for copyright holders to get a court order requesting ISPs to provide IP addresses associated with computers which have downloaded copyrighted material without paying for it. The copyright holders could afterwards contact those suspected of illegal file sharing requesting them to stop the activity. If those in question do not comply, the copyright holders can use the information obtained from the ISPs to sue the infringer and ask for compensation for copyright violations. With this, the Swedish draft law would go even farther than IPRED. The proposed law faces a large opposition from centre-right political parties and youth organisations. More than 22 000 members have joined a group started by Pirate Party vice-chair Christian Engstrvm on Facebook which is called Stoppa IPRED (Stop IPRED) and which has sent e-mails of protests to Swedish Parliament members. "We have examples from other countries where this has amounted to the legalization of wide-spread blackmail. Record companies get the name of someone suspected of file sharing and send out a letter demanding 20,000 Swedish crowns (1 800 euros) or some other made up sum with the threat that if you don't pay, we'll be taking you to court" said Engstrvm In an attempt to answer to these concerns, according to Sveriges Radio, justice minister Beatrice Ask, whose ministry is responsible for the law, has asked for the deletion from the draft law of a clause making the law enforceable retroactively, fact which would have giving the industry the possibility to access information about people who have been illegally downloading copyrighted material over the past few years and therefore to take the respective people to court for actions performed in the past. Another change that seems to have been introduced by the minister is that IP addresses can only be given when the suspected file sharing is "of commercial nature." The vote of the Swedish Parliament on the matters is expected these days. Swedish copyright laws 'a joke' (26.11.2008) http://www.thelocal.se/15946/20081126/ Justice minister offers concessions on file sharing law (21.11.2008) http://www.thelocal.se/15844/20081121/ Sweden judges back Pirate Hunter Act (14.11.2008) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/sweden_closer_to_antipiracy_law/ Lines drawn in battle over file sharing bill (14.11.2008) http://www.thelocal.se/15688/20081114/ Resistance mounts to new file sharing law (7.11.2008) http://www.thelocal.se/15536/20081107/ ============================================================ 5. Turkey: Another blocking order against YouTube ============================================================ For the forth time in two years, on 20 November 2008, the Turkish authorities blocked access to YouTube asserting that certain content posted on the site was disrespectful to Kemal Mustafa Atat|rk, the Turkish Republic's founder, or supported the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Turkey is the only country in the world banning YouTube. "We have said it before and we say it again now - blocking access to YouTube is wrong. It has been blocked since 5 May, as a result of an earlier court order, and the obstinacy shown by the authorities is unacceptable. Denying Turkish citizens access to this file-sharing site violates freedom of information" said Reporters Without Borders. The Cubuk magistrate court issued the latest blocking order on the basis of article 162 of the criminal procedure law and of Law 5651 on crimes and offences committed online which has been in force since November 2007 and which obliges ISPs to block access to websites declared illegal. According to this law, a public prosecutor may ban access to a website within 24 hours if the content is considered "liable to incite suicide, paedophilia, drug usage, obscenity or prostitution" or if it "contradicts the law of Atat|rk." YouTube is not the only site banned by the Turkish authorities. Since 2007, based on the same laws, about 1 000 websites which have been blocked by Turkey's Telecommunications Directorate. Besides YouTube, recently, nacizanebilgo.com, the Turkish popular dictionary website has also been made inaccessible following a complaint from religious leader Adnan Oktar on the grounds that the site editors allowed Internet users to post "insulting" terms on him. Lawsuits initiated by Oktar have resulted in the blocking of at least 61 websites. Other banned websites include that of a teachers' trade union and the site of the British biologist Richard Dawkins. "Banning YouTube, Google's blogging site, the websites of a teachers' trade union, Richard Dawkins and even a Turkish dictionary stands alongside more than 40 cases against writers and journalists even since the reform of the so-called anti-Turkishness article of the penal code," stated Richard Howitt, the vice president of the European Parliament's Human Rights Sub-Committee. Howitt, who is a supporter of Turkey's becoming an EU member, met Justice Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin on 27 November in Ankara and asked him to overturn the decision of banning the sites, in the interests of free speech, warning about the implications of such actions upon Turkey's EU adhering process. "As a modern country looking forward to European Union membership, Turkey should be embracing new communications rather than putting itself in the same bracket as some of the world's pariah states," he said. According to Kerem Altiparmak and Yaman Akdeniz, authors of the book "Restricted Access", Internet restrictions are against European Union standards and Turkey could face charges at the European Courts of Human Rights for violating the freedom of expression. The authors argue that Turkey's current Internet regulations, besides being procedurally flawed, are designed to censor political speech: "Clearly the current regime, through its procedural and substantive deficiencies, is designed to censor and silence speech. Its impacts are wide, affecting not only the freedom of speech but also the right to privacy and fair trial. It has been reported that prosecutors have even demanded that politicians widen the scope of the law to include insults, defamation and terrorism. This antiquated approach remains unacceptable in a democratic society." The authors also point out the fact that blocking a site is also a totally inefficient method to combat illegal content: "Blocking as a preventative policy measure has been explicitly dismissed within the context of terrorist use of the Internet at the level of the European Union. Furthermore, circumvention technologies are widely available, and the filtering and blocking mechanisms and methods currently used in Turkey are easy to circumvent even for inexperienced Internet users." One argument in favour of this is that even the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan stated to the press that, despite the ban, he could access YouTube and even provided the information of how to do it. MEP urges turkey to end YouTube ban (28.11.2008) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5j6NR6ouzA63R5vnPNxaZN... YouTube censored yet again by another court order blocking access (25.11.2008) http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29421 European parliamentarians urge Turkey to remove YouTube ban (1.12.2008) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10463374.asp?scr=1 Turkey could face charges at European court over restrictions (30.11.2008) http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=160202 Ban on YouTube proves virtual (1.12.2008) http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/10441126.asp?gid=244 EDRigram - YouTube blocked once more in Turkey (30.01.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.2/youtube-turkey ============================================================ 6. Ireland proposes to legalise covert surveillance ============================================================ The Irish Government has approved the outline of a Bill which, if passed by Parliament, will permit police to break into private property to plant covert audio bugs and video cameras. The Covert Surveillance Bill is intended to legitimise what is already believed to be existing practice, to make Irish law compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and to allow evidence obtained in this way to be used in court. Judicial approval will be required before this can be done, except in exceptional circumstances. The procedure to deal with cases of exceptional urgency is too lax. Under the Bill as it stands those cases would bypass the judicial process entirely, so that surveillance could take place for up to 14 days without any authorisation. There must be a question mark as to whether this provision would be constitutional if it was used to break into and bug a dwelling. Instead, it would be preferable to deal with cases of urgency by permitting Gardam to commence surveillance without a judicial authorisation but then requiring that an application be made to the District Court for permission to continue the surveillance. Despite its broad title, the Bill addresses only one very narrow area - the covert surveillance of locations by devices which are physically planted in those locations. Many other forms of surveillance - such as the use of GPS devices to track the position of cars, the use of long range cameras and microphones to monitor locations from a distance and live monitoring of Internet activity - will still be entirely unregulated. As a result there will continue to be doubt as to whether Gardam have the power to use these types of surveillance and as to whether the resulting evidence can be used in criminal prosecutions. Meanwhile, although there is some legislation regulating other forms of surveillance such as the interception of communications, data retention and Garda use of CCTV, that legislation has developed on an ad hoc and reactive basis with few consistent principles applying to its use or oversight. Much of it is also out of date, most notably the 1993 interception of communications legislation which due to technological changes no longer adequately protects email and other Internet communications. Considered as a whole therefore, the wider Irish law is inadequate. Given that many of these issues were flagged by the Law Reform Commission in 1998, it is hard to see any justification for the failure to address them to date. Although this Bill does provide for some improvements, it is at best a piecemeal response which will not address similar problems with other forms of surveillance. It is clear that the time has come for comprehensive reform of the overall law relating to surveillance. This Bill is a good first step towards that reform. But it is only a first step, and it would be regrettable if the government were to continue to ignore this area until forced to act by another highly visible crime. Government approves covert Garda measures (18.11.2008) http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1118/breaking63.htm Time to take a close look at surveillance (28.11.2008) http://www.digitalrights.ie/2008/11/28/time-to-take-a-close-look-at-surveill... (contribution by TJ McIntyre - EDRi-member Digital Rights Ireland) ============================================================ 7. UK rejected data breach notification law ============================================================ Two reports were published on 24 November 2008 by UK Ministry of Justice related to the data breach notification law, the powers of the Government to share data and the Information Commissioner's inspection powers and funding arrangements. One of the reports states that the law requiring that significant data breaches should be notified to the Information Commissioner Office was rejected, the ministry considering that the notification should be subject to good practice and not to a law: "As a matter of good practice any significant data breach should be brought to the attention of the ICO and that organisation should work with the ICO to ensure that remedial action is taken" says the report which adds: "The ICO will take into account the failure of an organisation to notify any breaches of the data protection principles when considering enforcement action." The modification of the EU ePrivacy Directive introduces such an obligation to telecommunications companies and Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, said in April that that law should be extended to banks, online businesses and medical bodies. William Malcolm from Pinsent Masons said a breach notification law might have anyway been unnecessary as the lack of dealing with responsibly in case of data breach would lead to a breach of the Data Protection Act anyway. The report also announced that new laws would increase the powers of the Government to share data, introducing a fast-track procedure to allow data sharing when "a robust case" could be made. "We intend to bring forward legislation to confer upon the Secretary of State a power to permit or require the sharing of personal information between particular persons or bodies, so long as a robust case can be made to use that power. The power will also be used to simplify the data protection framework and remove any unnecessary obstacles to data sharing" says the report. The new legislation will also place a statutory duty on the ICO to prepare, publish and review a Code on the sharing of personal data that would will provide guidance on how organisations can share personal data and promote good practice in the sharing of personal data. "A breach of, or compliance with, the Code will be taken into account by the courts, the Information Tribunal and the ICO whenever it is relevant to a question arising in legal or enforcement proceedings". A second report acknowledged the necessity of a framework that would increase "public trust and confidence in the handling of personal data by both the public and private sector." The report proposes measures complementing ICO's present powers and ensuring it has the necessary and effective instruments to carry out its regulatory functions. The UK does not need a data breach notification law, says Government (25.11.2008) http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9619 Government announces new law for increased data sharing (25.11.2008) http://www.out-law.com/page-9617 ICO to get powers to audit public bodies without consent (25.11.2008) http://www.out-law.com/page-9618 The Information Commissioner's inspection powers and funding arrangements under the Data Protection Act 1998 Summary of responses (24.11.2008) http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/information-commissioner-consultation-respons... Why we don't need a security breach notification law in the UK (19.05.2008) http://www.out-law.com/page-9128 EDRigram: Data breach notification - different opinions in EU bodies ? (19.11.2008) http://www.edri.org/edri-gram/number6.22/data-breach-ec ============================================================ 8. Parliaments seem to use very little IT technology ============================================================ The findings of the World e-Parliament Report 2008 achieved by UNDESA and the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the use of information and communication technologies within 105 parliament assemblies from all over the world were presented on 25 November 2008, at the second high-level meeting of the Board of the Global Centre for ICT in Parliament. The Report is the first one of this kind and was meant to assess the level to which information and communication technologies are used by parliaments within their activities. It also used the information exchanged during the World e-Parliament Conference 2007 and the publicly available information related to the topic. The purpose of the report was to help "legislatures evaluate the potential benefits of ICT in supporting parliament's basic values of transparency, accessibility, accountability and effectiveness, and, at the same time, its representative, legislative and oversight functions. Its publication is intended to establish a shared knowledge base among the parliaments of the world and, most importantly, promote international dialogue on these matters." The issues tackled by the report were: the relationship between parliaments, ICT and the information society; innovation and leadership; management, planning and resources; infrastructures and services; documenting the legislative process; parliamentary websites; building a knowledge base for parliament; enhancement of the dialogue between parliaments and citizens and cooperation and coordination. According to the report, only 10% of the parliaments from EU, Africa, Latin America, Australia and Canada use ICT to make their activities known to their citizens. "For most parliaments, our survey has documented that there is a significant gap between what is possible with ICT and what has been accomplished," said Jeffrey Griffith, one of the authors. The study has shown that only 43% of the parliaments stated having document management systems and most of them find it difficult to keep their websites up to date and accessible to the wide public. Even when the sites displayed the texts of bills they lacked links to the relevant information. In most cases, but not in all, the level of the ICT use by a parliament appears to be related to the level of the national income. In Mr. Griffith's opinion, parliaments should use a similar model to Web 2.0 techniques used by the US presidential elections but also considered that in order to do that, strong political leadership, the active engagement of MPs and well-trained technical staff were necessary. "Attaining a high level of performance in the application of ICT is not only dependent on resources; it also requires strong political leadership, active engagement of members, a skilled secretariat, well-trained technical staff, and a sustained commitment to the strategic implementation of information and communication technologies in the legislative setting" says the World e-Parliament Report 2008. During the EP conference, Mechthild Rothe, vice-president of the European Parliament said that e-parliament strategies also had to guarantee a high level of IT security concerning the privacy of the citizens' personal data. She also made a presentation of the ICT tools used by the European Parliament including RRS feeds, podcasts, online streams of plenary sessions in 23 languages. This presentation came in contrast with the statements of the representatives of the Egyptian Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament who spoke of a "great digital divide" between the developed world and African countries. "There are technical and know-how obstacles in introducing ICT in the parliaments of the developing world, marred by ignorance, poverty and wars," said Ahmed Fathy Sorour, speaker of the Egyptian Parliament who was backed by Gertrude Mongella, President of the Pan-African Parliament. In her turn, she talked about the lack of dialogue and parliamentary representation which was one of the causes of conflicts such as the one presently going on in Congo. The survey also shows there is willingness from parliaments to improve their use of ICT technology and their awareness of the importance of the issue. The World e-Parliament Report 2008 also points out the "opportunities for parliaments to benefit from cooperating at the regional and global levels in the e-parliament domain. Existing and emerging parliamentary networks can sustain some of these efforts, but a worldwide dialogue is becoming increasingly essential. By offering coordinated support and training for those parliaments with fewer resources, increasing the opportunities for sharing expertise and software at a global level and providing greater access to parliamentary information resources, parliaments will be better positioned to fulfil citizens' legitimate expectations, achieve common goals and advance the principles of the World Summit on the Information Society." Parliaments are slow in going online, study shows (25.11.2008) http://euobserver.com/843/27175/?rk=1 World e-Parliament Report 2008 - Executive summary http://www.ictparliament.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=245 ============================================================ 9. Recommended Action ============================================================ Collective Redress: Commission seeks views on settling large scale consumer complaints The European Commission has published a Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress on how to facilitate redress in situations where large numbers of consumers have been harmed by a single trader's practice which is in breach of consumer law. Violations of consumer rules could include overcharging consumers - through hidden charges or overbilling - misleading advertising on websites, or failing to provide compulsory information on financial products. These kinds of illegal practices, if they occur to a large number of consumers, can cause considerable damage to consumers, generate unfair competition and distort markets. The Green Paper identifies barriers to effective consumer redress in terms of access, effectiveness and affordability and presents various options to close the gaps identified. The options set out in the Green Paper seek to ensure that consumers who are victims of illegal commercial practices can get compensated for their losses, while avoiding unfounded claims. Comments on the Green Paper can be submitted until 1 March 2009. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1800&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en The Green Paper on Consumer Collective Redress http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/greenpaper_en.pdf ============================================================ 10. Recommended Reading ============================================================ EDPS sees adoption of Data Protection Framework for police and judicial cooperation only as a first step http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/P... The European Commission has published its report on the recent consultation on the review of the PSI Directive. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/online_consulta...; http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/online_consultation/revie.... ============================================================ 11. Agenda ============================================================ 3-6 December 2008, Hyderabad, India Third Internet Governance Forum http://www.intgovforum.org 6 December 2008, Berlin, Germany Open Everything http://openeverything.mixxt.de/ 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 December 2008, Skopje, Macedonia Fourth International Conference e-Society.Mk. http://www.e-society.mk/ 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/ 16-17 January 2009, Brussels, Belgium Computers, Privacy & Data Protection conference CPDP 2009: Data Protection in A Profiled World? http://www.cpdpconferences.org/ 23 January 2008, Geneva, Switzerland Communia Workshop - Public Broadcasting and Alternative Licensing - Co-organized by the European Broadcasting Union and the Research Center for Information Law at the University of St. Gallen (FIR-HSG) http://www.communia-project.eu/node/163 28 January 2009, Europe-wide 3rd Data Protection Day http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/data_protection/Data... 18-20 March 2009, Athens, Greece WebSci'09: Society On-Line http://www.websci09.org/ 1-4 June 2009, Washington, DC, USA Computers Freedom and Privacy 2009 http://www.cfp2009.org/ 2-3 July 2009, Padova, Italy 3rd FLOSS International Workshop on Free/Libre Open Source Software Paper submission by 31 March 2009 http://www.decon.unipd.it/personale/curri/manenti/floss/floss09.html 13-16 August 2009, Vierhouten, The Netherlands Hacking at Random http://www.har2009.org/ 10-12 September 2009, Potsdam, Germany 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam Section: Protest Politics Panel: The Contentious Politics of Intellectual Property First proposals to be submitted by 1 February 2009 http://www.ecpr.org.uk/potsdam/default.asp ============================================================ 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 <edrigram@edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation. http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request@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 - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram@edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE