============================================================ EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 4.11, 7 June 2006 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. EU-US agreement on passenger data transfer annulled 2. Frankfurt Appellate Court says online demonstration is not coercion 3. New Czech Police draft act allows taking DNA samples by force 4. Content flatrate is feasible according to French study 5. Campaign against censorship on the Internet 6. Journalistic protection for online journalists and bloggers 7. Dutch Gamer in US intelligence spotlight 8. Private copy system under scrutiny 9. Agenda 10. About ============================================================ 1. EU-US agreement on passenger data transfer annulled ============================================================ The European Parliament obtained the annulment by the European Court of Justice of the agreement between the European Community and the US Government on the transfer of passenger name records (PNR) from foreign carriers to the US with the view to combat terrorism and maintain national security. In order to prevent problems the agreement will be still in force until 30 September 2006. Until then the Member States have time to solve the legal issues arising from the annulment within or outside the EU context. After 11 September 2001 air carriers flying from Europe to the US were in a dilemma. The US Government required to access personal data of travellers contained in the databases of all foreign carriers. On the other hand, 1995 EU Directive on data protection restricts the transfer of personal data from one jurisdiction to another unless there is adequate protection of that data. Following a series of negotiations to solve this dilemma during 2002 and 2003 on issues related to the amount of data transferred, the period of data retention and data protection, an agreement between EU and US entered into force in May 2004. The European Commission also decided that the US provided adequate protection for the data transfer to take place. The European Parliament however considered that data transfer should not take place unless greater data protection measures were taken.It also found that the European Commission had no legal jurisdiction to conclude such an agreement and therefore decided to challenge the agreement at the European Court of Justice. The decision of the Court was taken considering the European Commission had no legal authority to conclude such an agreement as the Directive does not apply to this kind of data transfer. The Commission disagreed and considered that the carriers process PNR data within the Community jurisdiction and then make the transfer of these data to US so these activities of private parties are related to public security and therefore are regulated by the Directive. The court considered that the transfer of PNR data to the US concerns public security, and as private operators must operate within a framework established by public authorities, the European Commission was acting in the area of public security in which it has no jurisdiction. The court concluded that both the agreement and the decision on adequacy were based on the wrong legal base. However, the court decided on the annulment of the agreement without considering the other pleas from the Parliament related to the privacy and human rights aspects of the agreement. This leaves open the possibility of bi-lateral agreements between the US and each EU member state. The decision of the Court therefore should not be considered as a real victory of the European Parliament, which has no power of approval over such treaties or the power to bring legal actions against them. There is also the risk that such a separate treaty signed between a member state and the US could be even worse than the original agreement from the point of view of data protection standards. Judgment of the Court of Justice - PNR case (30.05.2006) http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Rechercher$docrequi re=alldocs&numaff=C-317/04&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=10 0 European Court of Justice press release (30.05.2006) http://curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/cp06/aff/cp060046en.pdf Courts annul EU-US air data deal (30.05.2006) http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200605/e2bac420-d618-4608-94c0-59fd19aba6a5. htm EU-US passenger data transfer deal annulled by European Court (30.05.2006) http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-537923 Statewatch's Observatory on the exchange of data on passengers (PNR) http://www.statewatch.org/pnrobservatory.htm Staying vigilant after EU-US PNR deal cancelation (French only, 31.05.2006) http://www.iris.sgdg.org/info-debat/comm-cjcepnr0506.html EDRI-gram : Advocate General European Court rejects PNR deal (5.12.2005) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.24/PNR ============================================================ 2. Frankfurt Appellate Court says online demonstration is not coercion ============================================================ The collective blockade of a corporate website in the context of a political event is not violence or coercion but legitimate free expression, a German Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt decided on 22 May. The decision came almost five years after the online demonstration took place. The groups "Libertad" and "Kein Mensch ist illegal" (No Human is Illegal) had called for an online blockade of Lufthansa's website to protest against the company's participation in the deportation of asylum-seekers. With a script- (client-) based distributed denial of service attack, the Lufthansa web servers were supposed to be blocked during the annual company's shareholders assembly on 20 June 2001. Though Lufthansa was mostly able to adapt to the protest by renting more bandwidth for that day, the event created significant public interest. 13000 people participated in the demonstration, the Federal Ministry of Justice publicly questioned its legality, and others even spoke about "computer sabotage". The online demonstration was accompanied by an offline protest at the shareholders assembly venue. The organizers had tried to register the online protest with the authorities beforehand like a normal demonstration, but had been rejected. While the organizers called the demonstration a modern form of non-violent blockade and referred to their constitutional right to freedom of assembly, Lufthansa and the Frankfurt public attorney saw in it a call to coercion. The offices of Frankfurt-based group Libertad were searched and computers seized, and the main official organizer, Andreas-Thomas Vogel, was indicted. Investigations were led by the state security branch of the police and the attorney's office. The Frankfurt district court convicted Vogel to a fine in summer 2005, and ruled that the demonstration equalled coercion against Lufthansa and other website visitors. The first criminal chamber of the Frankfurt Appelate Court now dropped all charges and ruled (No. 1 Ss 319/05) that the demonstration was in fact no violence or coercion, but had been targeted at influencing public opinion. Therefore it was legal. Libertad spokesman Hans-Peter Kartenberg commented: "The Internet, in spite of its virtuality, is a real public space. Where dirty deals are made, there you can and must also protest against them." This ruling will be important in the future development in this legal field, as this trial had been the first criminal case about online demonstrations in Germany. Decision by the Frankfurt Appellate Court (in German only, 22.05.2006) http://www.libertad.de/service/downloads/pdf/olg220506.pdf Statement by Libertad on the ruling (in German only, 1.06.2006) http://www.libertad.de/inhalt/projekte/depclass/verfahren/libpe010606.shtml Higher Regional Court says online demonstration is not force In German (1.06.2006) http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/73755 In English (2.06.2006) http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/73827 (Contribution by Ralf Bendrath, EDRi-member Netzwerk Neue Medien, Germany) ============================================================ 3. New Czech Police draft act allows taking DNA samples by force ============================================================ The Czech Senate, upper chamber of the Parliament, approved on 25 May 2006 the amendment of the Criminal Proceedings Code and Police Act, which empowers police officers to take DNA samples and other identification samples as fingerprints. According to the draft police can take the DNA samples even by using force in case of resistance. Currently, a person may refuse to provide the saliva sample, which could result only in aprocedural fine of maximum 2800 Eur. The new amendment foresees that the DNA samples can be taken from people suspected, charged, accused, sentenced or in execution of protective measures. The amendment also contains provisions authorizing massive DNA sampling from all people that are imprisoned for wilful crimes. This purposed measure will concern approximately 12 000 people. Due to the necessary financial resources for processing the DNA samples into DNA profile, there is going to be a substantial delay in this activity. It means in fact, that the police will hold complete DNA's of thousands of detainees for an unknown period. There is a standard that requires the destruction of the original sample, after the DNA has been processed into the profile. EDRi-member Iuridicum Remedium elaborated a paper with an overview of the risks of the new law. The draft paper was disseminated and distributed to the lawmakers. However, the bill was passed surprisingly easyly in both Parliament chambers, after an intensive lobby of the Police Forensic Institute, the institution that manages the National DNA Database. Despite highlighting the human rights risks of the amendment, the bill was supported by 43 of the 49 present senators. Only some senators expressed their doubts about broadening police powers without appropriate safeguards for the rights of the concerned persons. The bill is waiting to be signed by the President of the Republic. In case he does not sign it, the law will not enter into force, because the lower chamber does not have the opportunity to take a vote on it, since it is dissolved due to elections. Legislative process of the amendment to the Police Act http://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=4&T=1024 (in Czech only) Comments from Iuridicum Remedium on the draft act http://www.iure.org/570359 (in Czech only, 15.05.2006) Police will be able to forcibly take DNA sample from detained persons http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/vyhledavani/index_view.php?id=190180 (in Czech only, 25.05 2006) (Contribution by Helena Svatosova - EDRI-member Iuridicum Remedium - Czech Republic) ============================================================ 4.Content flatrate is feasible according to French study ============================================================ Nothing in the national law and international obligations prevents states from permitting file-sharing as long as they subject it to a levy. This is the conclusion of a legal feasibility study under the supervision of Prof. Andri Lucas, the most renowned copyright scholar in France. The study on the feasibility of compensation for peer-to-peer file-sharing, first released in French in June 2005, has been translated into English for wider accessibility. The translation has been conducted at the initiative of the German advocacy group privatkopie.net with the support of BEUC, the European Consumers's Organisation, and Stiftung Bridge. The analysis concludes that downloading is covered by the private copying exception, provided that the existing system of remuneration is adapted. Internet service providers would have to pay a levy, just as the manufacturers and importers of blank media do today. For uploading, the authors envisage subjecting the so called making available right to mandatory collective management. In short, "compulsory collective management is not perceived as reversing the fundamental principles of copyright, but instead 'reinforcing and (..) organising the protection granted to authors against infringements of their fundamental rights, as consecrated in French law since 1793". L'Alliance Public-Artistes has supported its arguments for a Global Licence by additional studies on the technical and economic feasibility. The latter find that a levy of 5 Euros per month is economically justified. These studies have thoroughly invalidated arguments that a flat rate compensation for legal file-sharing is not compatible with national, European and international copyright law and that it threatens the emerging online market. Such arguments were brought forth, among others, by the German Ministry of Justice. With reference to the Lucas study, Members of French Parliament from both the conservative ruling party as well as from the socialist party have advanced amendments to the recent copyright law reform in France with the aim of introducing a Global Licence. The National Assembly passed these amendments on 22 December 2005. The Global Licence was a reality in the proposals for a short period of time. The rights industry only managed to get it rolled back by an unprecedented campaign that Liberation called "total war on the Global Licence". When the administration brought the draft copyright law up for vote in the French National Assembly in January again, the provision on the Global Licence was gone. Privatkopie.net considers that collective rights management is ideally suited for the individual mass medium Internet. It is legally, technically and economically feasible. Privatkopie.net also expresses its hope in increasing the rationality of the international copyright debate by releasing an English translation of the Lucas study. Peer-to-peer File Sharing and Literary and Artistic Property - A Feasibility Study regarding a system of compensation for the exchange of works via the Internet English Version (03.2006) http://privatkopie.net/files/Feasibility-Study-p2p-acs_Nantes.pdf French Version (05.2005) http://alliance.bugiweb.com/usr/Documents/RapportUniversiteNantes-juin2005.p... f Study Shows : Content Flatrate is Feasible! (28.05.2006) http://privatkopie.net/files/PM-060528.html EDRI-gram : Update on French EUCD Transposition (29.03.2006) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.6/frencheucd (Contribution by Volker Grassmuck , privatkopie.net) ============================================================ 5.Campaign against censorship on the Internet ============================================================ Amnesty International together with The Observer and Soda Creative launched a campaign called irrepressible.info against the increasing governmental censorship of the internet. The campaign asks governments to stop censoring websites, blocking emails or shutting down blogs and make an appeal to the big corporations to stop supporting these actions. The Irrepressible.info website set up for the campaign includes a badge with parts of censored information and people are urged to send emails including this badge. Thus the censored information can be transmitted all around the globe. The website includes also a pledge that will be presented at the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Athens in November 2006 where governments and companies from all over the world will discuss the future of the Internet. The pledge that has been signed by more than 20 000 individuals says: "I believe the Internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference." Amnesty is urging people to petition governments to cease censoring the web. It also urged technology companies not to facilitate such activities. Information technology companies "have helped build the systems that enable surveillance and censorship to take place", Amnesty claims. In the campaign-launching article Kate Allen, UK director of Amnesty International, criticised technology companies that allow censorship and provide information to governments convicting political dissidents. Irrepressible.info gives Yahoo, Microsoft and even Google as examples of companies having provided confidential user information to the Chinese authorities resulting in suppression of freedom of expression, and even imprisonments. The big companies defend their position and consider that entering restricted countries such as China is for the good of the local population because some information is better than none. Amnesty - Irrepressible.info campaign http://irrepressible.info/ Amnesty: we must free the internet (28.05.2006) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784625,00.html Today, our chance to fight a new hi-tech tyranny (28.05.2006) http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1784643,00.html Amnesty takes a strike against web censorship (30.05.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/30/amnesty_anti_web_censorship/ ============================================================ 6.Journalistic protection for online journalists and bloggers ============================================================ The Californian appeal court decided on 26 May that online journalists and bloggers have the same right to protect their sources as all other journalists. The case was brought to court by Apple Computer demanding from a number of news website operators to reveal the source of confidential information posted about some of its products. Initially the trial court had ruled in favour of Apple but the appeal court changed this decision stating that the defendants were protected by California's reporter's shield law, as well as the constitutional privilege against disclosure of confidential sources. A major point in the case was whether the writers involved deserved the protection of the First Amendment and the sites involved could be considered a "newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication" as it is expressed by the law. The Californian Court of Appeal's decision is considered as a major victory for press freedom. "This is a victory for the rights of journalists, be they online or offline journalists, and it's a victory for the public at large", said Kurt Opsahl, the staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the group that represented the journalists. "It protects the free flow of information to the press and from the press to the public". Reporters Without Borders added: "The Californian appeal court's decision is historic because it gives a new legitimacy to bloggers. Even though they do not have press cards, they will henceforth have right of place in the world of news and information". The case highlights the lack of precedents in the UK regarding the journalistic protection. The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 is an equivalent act protecting journalists and although the law does not provide absolute protection for sources, the court is required to decide whether the request for source identification is sufficiently in the public, justice or national security interest to over-ride a general presumption of source protection. Recent cases have tended to favour the journalist's right to protect his sources. John MacKenzie, a Solicitor Advocate and partner with Pinsent Masons law firm suggested that the Contempt of Court Act is broad enough to cover operators of Internet news wires, blogs or other new media content. Decision in Apple v. Does (20.05.2006) http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Apple_v_Does/H028579.pdf Huge Win for Online Journalists' Source Protection (26.05.2006) http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_05.php#004698 Court ruling protecting bloggers' sources hailed as historic (30.05.2006) http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17850 UK bloggers also likely to be Apple-proof (01.06.2006) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/01/uk_bloggers_protected/ ============================================================ 7. Dutch Gamer in US intelligence spotlight ============================================================ A Dutch gamer has become subject of US intelligence and widespread international media attention because of a self-made video-game movie. The video consists of footage of the game Battlefield 2 spiced up with different music and voiceovers. It was presented on 4 May 2006 at a meeting of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence as evidence of a militant campaign to recruit Muslim youth on the Internet. Reuters reported on the video that was shown at the meeting and stated that it was a user-modified version of best-selling game Battlefield 2, a military simulation which features combat between U.S. forces and those of the fictitious Middle East Coalition (MEC) as well as the People's Republic of China. Reuters quoted a Pentagon official, Dan Devlin, as saying: "What we have seen is that any video game that comes out... (al Qaeda will) modify it and change the game for their needs". The video starts with the voice of a male narrator saying: "I was just a boy when the infidels came to my village in Blackhawk helicopters. The infidels fired at the oil fields and they lit up as the eyes of Allah". This is in fact a very easy recognisable copy of a voice-over from the movie "Team America: World Police", an American satire by the makers of South Park. The video footage was not created with a modified version of Battlefield 2 at all, but with standard game footage from an add-on module, a retail product widely available in the United States and elsewhere. The Dutch maker Samir published the movie in the end of 2005 on a Battlefield 2 forum under the name "Sonic Jihad", a reference to a rap-album by rapper Paris. He took most of the sounds from the movie called "Lion of the Desert" starring Anthony Quinn. Devlin spoke before the Committee, at which contractors from Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) gave lawmakers a presentation that focused on Iraq as an engine for Islamic militant propaganda. SAIC has a $7 million Defence Department contract to monitor 1,500 militant websites that provide Al Qaeda and other militant organisations with a main venue for communications, fund-raising, recruitment and training. To present this material, that is completely build up from various pieces of western media content, as terrorist propaganda seems rather unconvincing. Various gamers have ridiculed it. Samir has explained the context of the video in various interviews in which he stated that the video shouldn't be taken seriously. The attention by US intelligence officials is however enough reason for him, a 25-year old quality manager in a hospital, to cancel his plans to visit New York out of fear of interrogation at arrival. US accuses militants of using video games in youth appeal (07.05.2006) http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5c05%5c07%5cstory_7-5-200... _pg4_9 Was Congress misled by "Terrorist" game video? We talk to gamer who created the footage (11.05.2006) http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/285129.html?thread=23112137 Hearing on the Terrorist/Jihadist Use of the Internet for Strategic Communications (04.05.2006) http://intelligence.house.gov/Reports.aspx?Section=134 Transcript of the Committee hearing (04.05.2006) http://www.watercoolergames.org/archives/committee_hearing_part_one.doc The video http://www.archive.org/download/Sonic_jihad/Sonic_Jihad12.wmv (Contribution by Joris van Hoboken - EDRI-member Bits of Freedom - Netherlands) ============================================================ 8. Private copy system under scrutiny ============================================================ The issue of the private copy remuneration system is becoming a subject of debate for interest groups from all over the world. L'AEPO-ARTIS grouping 27 associations of artists of Europe, the International Federation of Musicians and the International Federation of Actors took a stand in the support of the present private copy levy system. According to the artists associations, the present private copy system "significantly supports the cultural domain" as "a flexible system combining freedom for consumers and legitimate revenues for the copyright owners" being "vital for interpreters in the exploitation of their interpretation". Replacing the fees on private copy, which brought income to the artists, with DRM, which allows copying only within a system approved by its producer, is profitable only for the industry selling DRM systems and not to the interpreters who should be able to be compensated for copies of their work. The Federation considers that technical protection measures against copying applied to CDs, DVDs and online works are prejudicial both to consumers and artists preventing the circulation of artistic creation and attacking individual freedom. The position of these associations comes at the moment when the topic of the copyright levy reform is included in the European Commission Work Program for 2006. The commission is concerned "that copyright levies are being applied to digital equipment and media without due account being given to the impact on new technologies and equipment especially the availability and use of so called "digital rights management" technologies which can provide alternative ways of compensating right-holders. Furthermore, there is a lack of transparency about the application, collection and distribution of the copyright levies to right-holders." On the other side of the debate is an alliance called Copyright Levies Reform Alliance (CLRA) that was formed by IT, telecoms, electronics and digital industry associations, to lobby for removal of the levies. The copy protection technologies are also criticized by a recent report of the UK All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG). The DRM report from APIG looked at how copy protection systems restrict digital movies and music and made several recommendations on the labelling regulations that should tell consumers what they will and will not be able to do with digital content that they purchase or on the prices charged for the same digital content in different countries. AEPO-ARTIS, FIA and FIM express their deep concern and clear opposition to any restrictions of the remuneration system for private copying (31.05.2006) http://www.labellife.com/2006/05/31/aepoartis_fia_a.html#more The artists all over the world defend private copy (in French) (1.06.2006) http://www.ratiatum.com/news3151_Les_artistes_du_monde_entier_defendent_la_c... pie_privee.html EC - Copyright levy reform http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/levy_reform/index_en.htm Coalition seeks to reform EU copyright levies (6.04.2006) http://www.out-law.com/page-6821 MPs in digital downloads warning (4.06.2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5041684.stm "Digital Rights Management" - Report of an Inquiry by the All Party Internet Group (06.2006) http://www.apig.org.uk/index/APIG_DRM_Report-final.pdf ============================================================ 9. Agenda ============================================================ 14-18 June, Rathen, Germany ICA-IAMCR Symposium on Internet Governance http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc/icapreconf.html 17 June 2006, Berlin, Germany Start: 14:00, Alexanderplatz Demonstration "Freiheit statt Sicherheitswahn" (Freedom instead of Security Delusion) http://initiative.stoppt-die-vorratsdatenspeicherung.de 19-20 June 2006, Paris, France New relations between creative individuals and communities, consumers and citizens. Hosted by the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) http://www.tacd.org/docs/?id=296 19-23 June, Singapore Euro-Southeast Asia ICT Forum (EUSEA2006) (with the EU Commission as co-host) http://www.eusea2006.org 21 June 2006, Luxembourg Safer Internet Forum 2006 Focus on two topics: "Children's use of new media" and "Blocking access to illegal content: child sexual abuse images" http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/sip/si_forum/forum... 23 June 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark Book Launch Human Rights in the Global Information Society. Keynote on Privacy, terrorism and the new security agenda. Organized by The Danish Human Rights Institute and The Danish WSIS network Information about the book. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 Program and invitation: http://www.humanrights.dk / http://www.una.dk/wsis 26-27 June 2006, Berlin, Germany 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 26-30 June 2006 Geneva, Switzerland Provisional Committee on Proposals Related to a WIPO Development Agenda (PCDA/2) http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=9766 26-28 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2006) http://weis2006.econinfosec.org/ 28-30 June 2006, Cambridge, UK Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies http://petworkshop.org/2006/ 3-5 July, Cambridge, UK Privacy Laws & Business, 19th Annual International Conference "Privacy Crisis Ahead? Investing enough in data protection to strengthen and defend your reputation" http://www.privacylaws.com/conferences.annual.html 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 Students may apply for funds to attend the workshop until 30 June 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/ =========================================================== 10. 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/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=626 &Itemid=4&lang=mk - 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]