======================================================================
EDRi-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 11.20, 23 October 2013
=======================================================================
Contents
=======================================================================
1. Data protection vote – one step forward, two big steps backwards
2. Tough negotiations for the law enforcement data protection directive
3. France is demanding explanations from the US over NSA surveillance
4. ECtHR: Internet news portal liable for the offensive online comments
5. Increased level of online censorship in Italy
6. European Court of Justice: Fingerprints in electronic passport are OK
7. After 3 years: French authority Hadopi keeps proving its uselessness
8. Skype is investigated in Luxembourg for its relations to NSA
9. Recommended Action
10. Recommended Reading
11. Agenda
12. About
=======================================================================
1. Data protection vote – one step forward, two big steps backwards
=======================================================================
The European Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee held a crucial vote
on Monday evening, 21 October 2013, on the future of privacy and data
protection in Europe.
We applaud Parliamentarians for supporting – and even improving -
several important and valuable elements of the original Commission
proposal. We are particularly happy that the Committee chose to overturn
the Commission's proposal to allow Member States the scope to exempt
themselves from the rules on profiling.
Nonetheless, we are shocked and disappointed that Parliamentarians voted
to introduce massive loopholes that undermine the whole proposal.
“If allowed to stand, this vote would launch an 'open season' for online
companies to quietly collect our data, create profiles and sell our
personalities to the highest bidder” said Joe McNamee, Executive
Director of European Digital Rights. “This is all the more disappointing
because it undermines and negates much of the good work that has been
done,” he added.
Despite almost daily stories of data being lost, mislaid, breached and
trafficked to and by foreign governments, our elected representatives
adopted a text saying that corporate tracking and profiling of
individuals should not be understood as significantly affecting our
rights and our freedoms.
The Committee extended the range of circumstances in which companies can
process an individual's data without their consent - and made the rules
far less easy to understand.
These huge loopholes are all the more disappointing when we consider
that MEPs agreed to support several positive measures elsewhere in the
text. These measures include an adequate level of sanctions in case of
abuses, data breach notifications, data portability and data protection
by design and by default.
The problematic compromises adopted are:
Compromise 4
http://www.edri.org/files/eudatap/04COMPArticle04.pdf
Compromise 6
http://www.edri.org/files/eudatap/06COMPArticle06.pdf
Compromise 20
http://www.edri.org/files/eudatap/20COMPArticle20.pdf
EDPS - An important and welcome step towards stronger and more
effective data protection in Europe
https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/ED...
=======================================================================
2. Tough negotiations for the law enforcement data protection directive
=======================================================================
On Monday, 21 October 2013 the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Committee of the European Parliament adopted reports on the General Data
Protection Regulation and the Directive for the police and justice sector.
In the past months, the Directive covering personal data processed to
prevent, investigate or prosecute criminal offences or enforce criminal
penalties has not attracted as much attention as the Regulation, but is
in fact part of the data protection package. The Directive aims to
ensure that the Member States replace the existing fragmented
legislation with a coherent legal framework for the processing and
exchange of personal data within the EU and with third countries.
The negotiating mandate for the Directive was adopted by 47 votes to
four, with one abstention. The Parliament now has a clear mandate to
start negotiations with the Member States and, according to the
Committee’s homepage, it expects to reach a common agreement before the
European elections in May 2014. The inter-institutional talks will start
as soon as the Member States will have agreed on their own position.
However, the upcoming negotiations with the European Commission, the
Council and the Member States are likely to face fundamental
difficulties. EDRi had insight into a document from the Working Party on
Information Exchange and Data Protection (DAPIX) session from 4 October
2013, where the Member States discussed the proposed Directive.
In this session, the Member States and the Commission focused
discussions on articles one to seven. It became clear, that there are
still fundamental reservations against the Directive. Germany, Great
Britain, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Sweden and Austria
raised the question of the added value compared to the Framework
Decision 2008/977/JI. Several Member States consider the
Directive as a defiance to the subsidiary principle and some referred to
the lack of legal competences of the European Union - Denmark, the Czech
Republic, Slovenia, Great Britain, Sweden, and Germany. Italy, Spain,
Germany, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stated their reservations on the
whole Directive. Only France supported the choice of instrument.
There was widespread consent between the Member States to adopt stricter
rules than laid out in the Directive and that there should be the
establishment of minimum standards (mentioned explicitly by Germany,
Great Britain, Czech Republic, Austria, Sweden, and the Netherlands).
Furthermore, the majority of Member States claimed an extension of the
scope to the protection against threats to public safety and maintenance
of public order, according to a proposal put forward by Romania.
Germany, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Hungary criticised that the EU
institutions are not within the scope of the Directive.
It became clear that article four (Principles relating to personal data
processing) and article seven (Lawfulness of processing) - and the
interaction of both articles in particular - needed further explanation.
The deletion of articles five and six proposed by the Irish presidency
was generally welcomed, especially by Belgium, Great Britain, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Germany and Sweden. Under article seven, the question
whether the consent of the person concerned should be added or not was
intensely discussed – apart from Austria all Member States seemed to be
in favour. The Commission generally rejected this solution.
The document we had access to only covered articles one to seven, but it
definitely gives a foretaste of how complicated the negotiations after
the Parliament’s adoption of the Directive with the Member States might
become.
Civil Liberties MEPs pave the way for stronger data protection in the EU
(21.10.2013)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131021IPR22706/htm...
EP LIBE Committee
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/libe/home.html
Q&A on EU data protection reform (22.10.2013)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130502BKG07917/htm...
Danish EU Presidency - Council working parties
http://eu2012.dk/en/EU-and-the-Presidency/About-EU/Arbejdsgrupper/Beskrivels...
Summary analysis of European Commission proposal for a Data Protection
Directive in the law enforcement sector (19.09.2012)
https://www.privacyinternational.org/sites/privacyinternational.org/files/fi...
(Contribution by Karim Khattab - EDRi intern & Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
=======================================================================
3. France is demanding explanations from the US over NSA surveillance
=======================================================================
On 21 October 2013, the French government summoned Charles Rivkin, the
US ambassador in France, demanding urgent explanation regarding the
revelations by Le Monde that, according to the documents released by
Edward Snowden, NSA has intercepted French citizens’ phone and internet
communications, at a massive scale.
Le Monde revealed on that day that, during a 30-day period in December
2012 and January 2013, more than 70 million French phone calls were
intercepted and text messages were also swept based on keywords. The
interceptions appear to have targeted not only people with suspected
terrorist links but also people in business, politics and the French
administration, under a programme codenamed US-985D.
According to the information obtained by Le Monde, when a telephone
number is used in France, it activates a signal which automatically
triggers the recording of the call. It seems this type of surveillance
system picks up SMS messages and their content as well, by using key
words. NSA then apparently stores the history of the connections or the
meta-data.
The French prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, demanded the US to provide
"clear answers, justifying the reasons these practices were used and
above all creating the conditions of transparency so these practices can
be put to an end". The White House’s first response was that the US
"gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations".
"These kinds of practices between partners, that violate privacy, are
totally unacceptable. We must quickly assure that these practices aren't
repeated," also stated French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius at an EU
foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg on the same day. The day was
rich in events as U.S. President Barack Obama and French President
Francois Hollande also had a phone discussion on the subject.
A news release from Hollande's office said he expressed his "deep
disapproval with regard to these practices" and stated that such alleged
activities would be unacceptable between allies and friends. The press
release also states that the two presidents agreed that French and
American intelligence services would cooperate to investigate the issue.
"The President and President Hollande discussed recent disclosures in
the press -- some of which have distorted our activities and some of
which raise legitimate questions for our friends and allies about how
these capabilities are employed. The President made clear that the
United States has begun to review the way that we gather intelligence,
so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our
citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share,"
says a news release from the White House.
This is not the only time France had issues with NSA spying activities.
In July, Hollande threatened to suspend negotiations for a transatlantic
free trade agreement after reports in the Guardian and Der Spiegel that
the NSA spied on EU offices and European diplomatic missions in
Washington and at the UN in New York.
Yet, also in July, Le Monde reported that France runs its own vast
electronic surveillance operation, intercepting and stocking data from
citizens' phone and internet activity, using similar methods to the
NSA's Prism programme.
Snowden leaks: France summons US envoy over NSA surveillance claims
(21.10.2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/snowden-leaks-france-us-envoy-n...
France in the NSA's crosshair : phone networks under surveillance
(21.10.2013)
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/10/21/france-in-the-nsa-s-cr...
How NSA spies on France (only in French, 21.10.2013)
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/10/21/comment-la-nsa-espionn...
Editorial of "Le Monde": fighting Big Brother (only in French,
21.10.2013)
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2013/10/21/editorial-du-monde-com...
US spy agency targets French firms (21.10.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/121833
Report: U.S. intercepts French phone calls on a 'massive scale'
(22.10.2013)
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/21/world/europe/france-nsa-spying/
=======================================================================
4. ECtHR: Internet news portal liable for the offensive online comments
=======================================================================
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on 10 October 2013 in
the case Delfi AS vs. Estonia that an Internet news portal was liable
for the offensive comments that were posted by the readers underneath
its online articles.
The Court held that the finding of liability by the Estonian courts was
a justified and proportionate restriction on the portal’s right to
freedom of expression, in particular, because:
- the comments were highly offensive;
- the portal failed to prevent them from becoming public, profited from
their existence, allowed their authors to remain anonymous; and,
- the fine imposed by the Estonian courts was not excessive.
Even though the portal had argued that the EU Directive on Electronic
Commerce, as transposed into the Estonian law, had made the case exempt
from liability, the Court found that it was for national courts to
resolve issues of interpretation of domestic law, and therefore did not
address the issue under EU law.
The decision was heavily debated by the freedom of speech advocates that
criticized the ruling for failing "to understand the role of Internet
intermediaries as the gateway to the exercise of free expression."
EDRi-member Article 19 pointed out that the decision is "a deeply
concerning precedent for freedom of expression in several respects. It
also displays a worrying lack of understanding of the issues surrounding
intermediary liability and the way in which the Internet works."
The Court has thus failed to appreciate the purpose of the EU E-Commerce
Directive provisions concerning hosting liability and has considered
that the news portal should have prevented defamatory and other clearly
unlawful comments from being made public. But that is actually
contradictory to article 15 of the Directive which prohibits Member
States from imposing monitoring obligations on information society
services, including actively seeking “facts or circumstances indicating
illegal activity.”
At the same time, the Court ignored the relevant international standards
developed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in this
area in his thematic report on the Internet where he clearly recommended
that “censorship measures should never be delegated to private entities,
and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of
which they are not the author.”
The decision of the Court Chamber is not final though.
During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may
request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If
such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the
case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will
hear the case and deliver a final judgement. If the referral request is
refused, the Chamber judgement will become final on that day.
Press release - Making an Internet news portal liable for the offensive
online comments of its readers was justified (10.10.2013)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng-press/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4529626-54...
Full Text - DELFI AS v. ESTONIA (10.10.2013)
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-126635
European Court strikes serious blow to free speech online (14.10.2013)
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37287/en/european-court-stri...
European ruling spells trouble for online comment (11.10.2013)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/10/european-ruling-spells-trouble-onli...
=======================================================================
5. Increased level of online censorship in Italy
=======================================================================
AGECOM, Italy’s independent Electronic Communications Authority, is on
the verge of undertaking the power of ordering the removal of any online
content that it deems to be in violation of the copyright law, without
the need of the parliament or court approval.
Despite strong criticism from NGOs, ISPs, other companies or legal
practitioners, the authority’ new Draft Regulation on Copyright
Protection on Electronic Communication Networks allows it to black out
foreign sites and take down Italian ones alleged to have infringed the
copyright law, within 48 hours, without any court decision.
The legislation is to be passed definitively in November 2013 after a
decision from the European Union.
AGCOM’s bill will give the authority the power to order Internet access
providers to disclose private information about subscribers and give
them to the right holders. Any website “inciting, aiding and abetting”
copyright infringement, even indirectly” will permit its complete seizure.
An alliance of organizations including the consumer groups, lawyers, and
business have initiated a campaign to oppose the measures introduced by
the bill which risk to turn ISPs into online censors, are totally
inefficient and may lead to over-blocking and abuse.
The alliance has also sent an open letter to Laura Boldrini, the
president of the lower house of the Italian Parliament urging the
assembly to take the matter into its own hands and suspend the draft
regulation.
On 1 October 2013, EDRi member Article 19 issued a detailed opinion on
the bill showing concern that it “provides for the blocking of entire
websites, domain names or IP addresses. These measures are both
ineffective and deeply inimical to free expression due to the high risks
of over-blocking. We are also concerned that blocking powers would be
entrusted to a regulator rather than the courts.”
In more disturbing news from Italy on the stupid IPR enforcement
measures, on the 17 October 2013, following a complaint from the music
industry group FIMI, several big torrent sites were put on the ISPs
blacklist by orders of the Bergamo court. Besides ExtraTorrent, 1337x,
H33T, TorrentHound, Italian ISPs may have to block a whole range of IP
addresses associated with The Pirate Bay, including some with authorized
content. (such as their mail server). The Observatory on The Internet
Censorship In Italy counts now over 6000 websites that are being blocked
in Italy.
Freedom of the web at risk in Italy: Copyright to hide censorship
(6.10.2013)
http://www.fulviosarzana.it/en/blog-en/freedom-of-the-web-at-risk-in-italy-c...
Petition - Help us say NO to Italian internet censorship!
http://sitononraggiungibile.info/?lang=en
Italy: Draft Regulation on Copyright Protection on Electronic
Communication (1.10.2013)
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37271/en/italy:-draft-regula...
Agcom, the new web sheriff does not listen to critics (only in Italian,
7.10.2013)
http://www.fulviosarzana.it/blog/agcom-il-nuovo-sceriffo-del-web-non-ascolta...
Open Letter to President Boldrini (only in Italian, 14.10.2013)
http://it.finance.yahoo.com/notizie/diritto-d-autore-lettera-alla-111556139....
Italian Court Orders ISPs to Block Several Major Torrent Sites
(17.10.2013)
http://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-isps-to-block-several-major-torrent-sit...
Observatory on The Internet Censorship In Italy
http://censura.bofh.it/
The Major illicit portals obscured. Provincial Command Bergamo (only in
Italian, 16.10.2013)
http://www.gdf.gov.it/GdF/it/Stampa/Ultime_Notizie/Anno_2013/Ottobre_2013/in...
=======================================================================
6. European Court of Justice: Fingerprints in electronic passport are OK
=======================================================================
The European Court of Justice ruled on 17 October 2013 that the
inclusion of the fingerprints in the EU electronic passports is lawful.
While the Court acknowledged that taking and storing of fingerprints in
passports constitutes an infringement of the rights to respect for
private life and the protection of personal data, it ruled that security
is more important than privacy and such measures are justified for the
purpose of preventing any fraudulent use of passports.
The ruling also claims that the measure of taking fingerprints is not
that sensitive, because it "involves no more than the taking of prints
of two fingers, which can, moreover, generally be seen by others, so
that this is not an operation of an intimate nature."
The decision admits that the electronic passports are not flawless, but
argues that "the fact that the method is not wholly reliable is not
decisive. Although that method does not prevent all unauthorised persons
from being accepted, it is enough that it significantly reduces the
likelihood of such acceptance that would exist if that method were not
used."
At the same time, the Court emphasized that the Regulation allows the
storage of fingerprints only in the electronic passport that will be
held by the owner and that it cannot be interpreted "as providing a
legal basis for the centralised storage of data collected or for the use
of such data for purposes other than that of preventing illegal entry
into the EU”.
This is not the only case where the ECJ will be asked to rule on
biometric passports, with another one where Dutch applicants had been
refused the issuing of their passports because they did not accept to
provide their fingerprints, that were stored in a database.
Gus Hosein from Privacy International explained Bloomberg BNA that "the
court had 'narrowly interpreted' EU law, and there was potential for
challenges against the taking of fingerprints for inclusion in passports
to be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. The court
ruling was the 'perpetuation of a stupid mistake' made by the European
Parliament when it approved the collection of fingerprints for passports."
But the EU seems to try to get to the next level of fingerprinting
regular people in its new 1 billion Euro Smart Borders proposal that
would include all personal details and the 10 fingerprints of all non-EU
citizens over 12 years old who want to enter the European Union. All
being held in one database.
Press release: Including fingerprints in passports is lawful
(17.10.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-10/cp130135en.p...
Full Judgement - Michael Schwarz vs. Stadt Bochum (17.10.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=143189&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=173614
Security trumps privacy, EU court says (17.10.2013)
http://euobserver.com/news/121816
EU Collection of Fingerprints for Passports Threatens Privacy, but Is
Lawful, ECJ Rules (21.10.2013)
http://www.bna.com/eu-collection-fingerprints-n17179878805/
EDRi-gram: ECJ to rule on the biometric passports (10.10.2012)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number10.19/ecj-rule-biometric-passports
=======================================================================
7. After 3 years: French authority Hadopi keeps proving its uselessness
=======================================================================
After three years of existence, Hadopi French authority in charge with
the infamous three-strikes gradual response system, has succeeded in
proving nothing but a large waste of public money.
To mark its 3-year anniversary, Hadopi has issued its activity report
which shows that, to the day, it has succeeded in ordering 1 sole
Internet disconnection and, on the other hand, it has experienced large
bureaucratic problems and issues with identifying subscribers.
Hadopi has sent a total of 1.912 million notifications to French
Internet subscribers as strike one, 186 153 follow-up letters as strike
2 and has caused 1 disconnection as strike 3.
Only for 2013, Hapodi costs the French taxpayers 5.4 million Euro, large
part of it spent to answer subscribers who make request regarding the
name of the works for which they receive the notification. As the
Ministry of Culture refused to allow for the names of the works to be
included in the notification, the law stipulates Hadopi has to answer to
the subscribers upon request. Therefore, in 2012-2013, there were 73210
contacts by phone or email with Internet subscribers out of which 81.73%
were related to the content of the notification.
Hadopi believes that a modification of the legislation in this sense
would be beneficial and would not affect the confidentiality of the
communication if the receiver is the owner of the subscription.
Moreover, to contact subscribers, Hadopi has to go via Internet ISPs.
The initial amount of the first notifications was thus reduced to
7.718 million as, apparently, there were multiple allegations against
the same subscriber. The report says that 88% of these allegations were
successfully matched against named subscribers.
Following the 186 453 letters sent for strike 2, there were 663 cases
for which Hadopi was to decide whether to submit them to the court which
resulted in 51 submissions to the courts for penalties. Most of these
appear to have incurred a fine of between 35 and 450 Euro. Only one got
a 15-day disconnection penalty.
Furthermore, Hadopi had other further expenses with the so-called
“educational” program which involves taking the message into schools and
educational establishments.
So, not only the system has proven inefficient for the declared purpose
of cutting down illegal sharing of copyrighted works, but it also
triggers high expenses from the public money.
The French government intends to incorporate Hadopi within the Conseil
supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA) which might cut down some expenses but
which does not entirely eliminate the system.
Hadopi: a blunt example of public money waste (only in
French,10.10.2013)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/27203-hadopi-un-exemple-flagrant-de-gaspill...
Hadopi turns three – bon anniversaire? (14.10.2013)
http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/france/908-hadopi-turns-three-bon-anniver...
HADOPI annual report for 2012-2013
http://www.hadopi.fr/sites/default/files/page/pdf/HADOPI_RapportAnnuel_2013....
EDRi-gram: The French three strikes system gave up on Internet
disconnection (17.03.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.14/french-3-strikes-without-disconnect...
=======================================================================
8. Skype is investigated in Luxembourg for its relations to NSA
=======================================================================
Skype, owned now by Microsoft, has entered the attention of Gerard
Lommel, Luxembourg’s Data Protection Commissioner, as a result of the
documents revealed by Edward Snowden in the PRISM affair.
Gerard Lommel has put Skype under investigation over its possible secret
collaboration with NSA, within PRISM spy programme, and the company
could face criminal and administrative sanctions, including a ban on
passing users' communications to the US intelligence agency.
If the investigation proves Skype has secretly shared personal data with
the NSA, it could also be fined for being in violation of the country's
data-protection laws, as the company has its headquarters in the
European country. Luxembourg’s constitution has a strong legislation
protecting the right to privacy and establishing that secrecy of
correspondence as inviolable, except for cases allowed by the law which
says that the surveillance of communications can occur only with
judicial approval or by authorization of a tribunal selected by the
prime minister.
Skype was founded in Scandinavia in 2003 with the purpose to allow
audio, video and chat conversations through an encrypted peer-to-peer
internet connection, which was not routed over a centralised network
like conventional phone calls. Due to its reputation for privacy and
security Skype has started being used by millions of people, including
journalists and activists.
According to the NSA leaked documents, in February 2011, Skype got a
directive to comply with NSA surveillance signed by the US attorney
general. Skype was acquired by Microsoft in May 20111 when it appears
that its relationship with the NSA has intensified.
In a letter obtained by the Guardian, sent to Privacy International in
September 2012, Skype's corporate vice president Mark Gillett suggested
that group video calls and instant messages could be obtained by law
enforcement as they were routed through its central servers and "may be
temporarily stored." Yet, Gillett also stated on another occasion that
audio and one-to-one video calls made by using Skype's "full client" on
computers were encrypted and did not pass through central servers, which
implies that the company could not help authorities intercept them.
"Skype promoted itself as a fantastic tool for secure communications
around the world, but quickly caved to government pressure and can no
longer be trusted to protect user privacy," said Eric King, head of
research at human rights group Privacy International.
Skype told the Guardian that it would not comment upon its compliance
with US surveillance or answer to technical questions about how it turns
over calls to the authorities. It also stated that the world needed "a
more open and public discussion" about the balance between privacy and
security while accusing the US government of opposing it.
"Microsoft believes the US constitution guarantees our freedom to share
more information with the public, yet the government is stopping us,"
said a spokesperson for Skype referring to an ongoing legal case in
which Microsoft is seeking permission to disclose more information about
the number of surveillance requests it receives.
Skype under investigation in Luxembourg over link to NSA (11.10.2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/11/skype-ten-microsoft-nsa
Skype faces Luxembourg probe over NSA Prism program – report
(11.10.2013)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57607062-93/skype-faces-luxembourg-probe-ov...
=======================================================================
9. Recommended Action
=======================================================================
Say your views on the Europe & the Internet in a global context
Deadline: 8 November 2013
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/content/europe-and-internet-global-co...
Internet Governance: I want your views! (9.10.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/content/internet-governanc...
=======================================================================
10. Recommended Reading
=======================================================================
MEPs call for suspension of EU-US bank data deal in response to NSA
snooping (23.10.2013)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131021IPR22725/htm...
Russia: FSB wants more access to Internet users’ information (21.10.2013)
http://themoscownews.com/russia/20131021/191995741/FSB-wants-full-access-to-...
Will The Canada-EU Trade Agreement Harm Our Freedoms Online? (20.10.2013)
https://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-the-canada-eu-trade-agreement-harm-our-...
A Copyright Masquerade - How Corporate Lobbying Threatens Online
Freedoms by Monica Horten (10.2013)
http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/a-copyright-masquerade
Results of the consultation on Open Research Data
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/node/67533
Working Document 02/2013 providing guidance on obtaining consent for
cookies (WP208)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion...
100 questions on surveillance to Polish authorities (10.2013)
http://www.panoptykon.org/node/6598
=======================================================================
11. Agenda
=======================================================================
21-27 October 2013, Worldwide
Open Access week
http://www.openaccessweek.org/events
22-25 October 2013, Bali, Indonesia
Internet Governance Forum 2013
http://igf2013.or.id/
24-25 October 2013, Barcelona, Spain
Oxcars and Free Culture Forum 2013
http://oxcars13.whois--x.net
http://2013.fcforum.net
24 October 2013, Ljubljana, Slovenia
The LAPSI 2.0 Conference: “The new PSI directive: What’s next?”
http://www.lapsi-project.eu/lapsi-20-conferences
25-27 October 2013, Siegen, Germany
Cyberpeace - FIfF Annual Meeting 2013
http://www.fiff.de/
19-20 November 2013, Berlin, Germany
Berlin Open Access Conference: 10th anniversary of the Berlin Declaration
http://www.berlin11.org/
27–30 December 2013, Hamburg, Germany
30C3 – 30th Chaos Communication Congress
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/wiki/Main_Page
22-24 January 2014, Brussels, Belgium
CPDP 2014: Reforming data protection: The Global Perspective
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/
3-5 March 2014, San Francisco, California, USA
RightsCon: Silicon Valley
https://www.rightscon.org/
19-20 March 2014, Athens, Greece
European Data Forum 2014 (EDF2014)
CfP by 10 December 2013
http://2014.data-forum.eu
24-25 April 2014, Barcelona, Spain
SSN 2014: Surveillance Ambiguities & Asymmetries
http://www.ssn2014.net/
28-29 April 2014, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
OER14: building communities of open practice
http://www.oer14.org/
============================================================
12. About
============================================================
EDRi-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRi has 35 members based or with offices in 21 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-gram.
All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.
This EDRi-gram has been published with financial support from the EU's
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme.
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