EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 9.1, 12 January 2011

EDRI-gram newsletter edrigram at edri.org
Wed Jan 12 05:37:20 PST 2011



biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

  Number 9.1, 12 January 2011


1. Web blocking discussions in European Parliament reach critical stage
2. EU Commissioner criticises US for the data protection negotiations
3. IPR Enforcement Plan: Blocking, filtering and monitoring via injunction
4. New media law in Hungary allows Internet censorship
5. Polish Supreme Court: All electronic press must be registered
6. French law Loppsi 2 adopted by the General Assembly
7. RapidShare wins another alleged copyright infringement case
8. ENDitorial: EDRi's data retention workshop at CCC
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About

1. Web blocking discussions in European Parliament reach critical stage

The European Parliament is currently at a crucial stage in the discussions
on the European Commission's proposals on web blocking. The MEP
in charge, Roberta Angelilli, has presented her draft report, other
parliamentarians have until 20 January to propose other amendments and an
"orientation vote" which will informally set Parliament policy on issues of
general agreement will take place on 3 February.

Despite the fact that the original proposal was made by the Commission in
March 2009, the level of debate has not developed to any great extent after
almost two years of discussion. The fact that the Commission failed to
provide any evidence from countries that already block websites has not had
any positive impact whatsoever. The fact that blocking is increasingly
irrelevant due to the use of P2P and hacked servers instead of static
"blockable" websites or the fact that blocking will give criminals immediate
warning that they have been detected are of no particular importance in the
debate. Indeed, even the actual purpose of blocking - accidental access,
deliberate access or something else - is not an issue which has been
discussed in any detail.

Nonetheless, in the debate held in the Civil Liberties Committee on 10
January 2011, eleven of the twelve parliamentarians who spoke were opposed
to the introduction of mandatory EU-wide blocking, German conservative MEP
Axel Voss being the sole exception. Roberta Angelilli's position is somewhat
unclear - in the legally binding articles of her report, she suggests making
blocking optional. However, in the explanatory "recitals", she suggests that
mechanisms "be put in place to block access from the Union's territory to
internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography"
and promotes the concept that Internet access providers should take on the
role of extra-judicial censors.

With regard to extra-judicial blocking, the Commission supports this
approach, despite having stated in an impact assessment in 2007 that "the
adoption of blocking measures necessarily implies a restriction of human
rights, in particular the freedom of expression and therefore, it can only
be imposed by law".

The blocking proposal has even led the European Commission to enter the
public affairs market. On 12 January, they cooperated with the Child
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP - affiliated to the UK
police Serious Organised Crime Agency) to transport parliamentarians to
London for a day of pro-blocking lobbying.

EDRi campaign page (10.01.2011)

Draft parliament report on the proposal for a directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation
of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA

Proposal for a Directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation
of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA

Impact Assessment  - Proposal for a Council Framework Decision amending
Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (6.11.2007)

(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

2. EU Commissioner criticises US for the data protection negotiations

Following a meeting she had in December 2010 with US attorney general Eric
Holder and Interior Minister Janet Napolitano, the EU Justice Commissioner
Viviane Reding expressed her concern on what she believed to be a
lack of interest of the US officials regarding the data protection agreement
to be negotiated between EU and US.

"The meeting turned out to be somewhat disappointing on data protection.
> From the outset, we have noted an apparent lack of interest on the US side
to talk seriously about data protection," Ms Reding said in a
statement adding that the US have not appointed a negotiator yet.

The US administration disagreed with Ms. Reding and William Kennard, the
United States ambassador to the European Union, stated that in his opinion
things had moved ahead and that, in order to decide on the negotiator, the
US administration needed to better understand what EU negotiators wanted to
include in the agreement.

The EU-US data-sharing agreement (so-called SWIFT deal) that gives US
authorities access to bank transfer information for anti-terrorism purposes
was rejected by EU legislature in February 2010 pending better data
protection conditions. An agreement became operational in August 2010 when
further protections were added to the SWIFT deal, such as the presence of an
EU supervisor in Washington to check that no abuse occurs.

In the meantime, US authorities continue talks for the existing EU-US
PNR (Passenger Name Record) exchange agreement which obliges airlines to
send details on passengers flying to USA that are to be cross-checked with
the US terrorist watch list.

The scope of the data use is wider than the European Parliament is
comfortable with. EP is asking for a high level of protection of the
transferred personal data (such as PNR data and financial information) and
wants a charter of rights outlining the fundamental principles that should
stand at the basis of future data-sharing, covering also bilateral

According to leaked information, the US authorities have several parallel
bilateral data sharing agreements with European governments."Member states
do business with the US and don't tell anyone, not even their own
parliaments. So the things the European Parliament can do on PNR for
instance, are marginal, because if Washington doesn't get it that way, they
do it bilaterally," stated MEP Sophie in't Veld.

The EU wants citizens to get the right to rectify and delete data and to go
to court in case of data misuse and asks for a more proportionate use of the
data by the authorities.

Reding wants to obtain limitations of retained data , a strict
ban on the transfer of data to other countries and asks for an independent
data protection supervisor to be appointed by the US for the supervision of
the authorities' use of citizen data, as there is in Europe.

Reding slams US over data privacy (21.12.2010)

Reding asks the "Kissinger question" on Data Protection Agreement with US

Viviane Reding takes on US over data privacy rights in anti-terror campaign

US envoy rejects Reding's charges on data protection (20.12.2010)

EDRi-gram: Data protection authorities call for a strict EU-US privacy
agreement (1.12.2010)

3. IPR Enforcement Plan: Blocking, filtering and monitoring via injunction

Just before Christmas, the European Commission published its report on
the application of the IPR Enforcement Directive.

The text, while written in fairly neutral terms, does subtly show the
Commission's plans for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and
the dangers that these hold for citizens' rights. Two points in particular
stand out - the circumvention of the E-Commerce Directive, in particular to
overturn the ban on imposing a "general obligation to monitor" on Internet
providers, and the intended weakening of the EU's data protection regime for
the benefit of copyright holders.

A.General obligation to monitor

The text explains that in order to have injunctions work "efficiently, it
could be useful to clarify that injunctions should not depend on the
liability of the intermediary". As the "no obligation to monitor" obligation
in the E-Commerce Directive is part of the intermediary liability section of
the Directive, this "clarification" in any revision of the Directive would
aim to give Member States the green light to impose monitoring and blocking
obligations on Internet intermediaries.

One example of how this would work in practice can be found in the Belgian
Scarlet/Sabam case, which is currently before the European Court of Justice.
In that case, the lower Belgian court decided that the Internet Provider
Scarlet was obliged to implement software on its network which would block
all "infringing" communications (identified automatically via software) of
sound files transferred via peer to peer over its network.

Commissioner Malmstrvm, who said in May 2010 that the "Commission
has absolutely no plans to propose blocking of other types of content"
(apart from child abuse images) and who promised to "personally very
strongly oppose any such idea" has so far been silent on this issue.

Furthermore, the findings reported in the Staff Working Paper that
accompanies this Report indicate that the currently available laws are not
strong enough to combat infringements of intellectual property rights
effectively, so it proposes deputizing internet intermediaries in an
extra-judicial policing role. "Given intermediaries' favourable position to
contribute to the prevention and termination of online infringements, the
Commission could explore how to involve them more closely."

B. Data protection

The Communication also seeks to undermine the fundamental right to privacy
by implying that a "rebalancing" is necessary between the right to privacy
and the right to property, as defined in the EU Charter on Fundamental
Rights. This has been one of the key demands of the content industry, which
argues that industry (that should be involved more closely in the
enforcement of IPR according to the Commission) should have greater rights
to use consumer data in order to police and prosecute their own clients.

The following text is from page 7 of the report:
"National laws implementing the various directives must therefore be
construed in a way that allows a balance to be struck between these rights
in each case in order to guarantee that the provision on the right of
information can protect the rightholders effectively without compromising
rights relating to the protection of personal data."

The Communication is part of a consultation and replies should be received
by 31 March 2011. All citizens who care about fundamental rights should
respond to the Communication.

Commission Communication - Application of Directive 2004/48/EC of the
European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of
intellectual property rights (22.12.2010)

SABAM v. S.A. Scarlet, District Court of Brussels, No. 04/8975/A, Decision
of 29 June 2007, published in CAELJ Translation Series #001 (Mady,
Bourrouilhou, & Hughes, trans.), 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 1279 (2008)

Malmstrvm's promise: "Combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of
children and child pornography: the Commission's proposed Directive"

(contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

4. New media law in Hungary allows Internet censorship

On 1 January 2011, a new Hungarian media law entered into force, giving the
government the power to control the Internet, endangering the freedom of
speech and journalism in general.

As Hungary took over the EU Presidency on 6 January 2011, in a context where
there are strong attempts from various EU governments to censor the
Internet, the Hungarian authorities started the year with a new law giving
excessive powers and control to the government over the public media
including Internet content.

According to the newly introduced law, all media must be registered and the
licences may be suspended or withdrawn for breaches.
The text does not distinguish between different types of media - traditional
broadcasters as well as online platforms have to obey the same
standards - and extends the protection against content, ranging from hate
speech to unintentional insult and incitement to hatred.

The law introduces the creation of a strong censorship authority which has
the power to unilaterally judge content material on the basis of broad and
unclearly defined criteria such as the protection of public order or the
appropriate information in relation to public affairs.

Perceived breaching of the law may bring forth fines of thousands of Euro
which will likely lead to media self-censorship, so much than
the text limits the journalists' capacity of protecting their sources, the
authority having the power to seize documents and files if it deems
necessary (even legally protected data).

The law is largely criticised and opposed by civil liberties organisations,
civil groups, media lawyers and even by other EU governments. Werner Hoyer,
the German deputy foreign minister stated that in his opinion the media law
"does not represent the idea of a union that is built on unity in
diversity," and added that Hungary should not be allowed to speak on
violations of free speech in Belarus as "the right to speak in the name of
Europe naturally implies a duty to respect internal European norms to be
able to represent them to the outside world in credible fashion." A
spokesperson for the French Presidency also stated France wanted the
Hungarian media law text to be altered, deeming it "incompatible" with the
idea of freedom of the press.

All the Hungarian parliamentary opposition parties said that they would
submit an appeal to the country's Constitutional Court.

A joint analysis of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Evtvvs Karoly
Institute and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, assessing the method and
pace of the legislative work of the newly elected Hungarian Parliament,
concluded the law violated the principle of the rule of law.

A group of Internet citizens, blackout4hungary, initiated a movement calling
on all Hungarians to turn their websites black starting with 5 January 2010,
as a protest against Internet censorship.

Following a meeting with the EU college of Commissioners on the EU
priorities for the next 6 years, the Hungarian Government seems to have a
softer attitude and Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister admitted that
his government needed to ensure that "adverse debate" did not overshadow the
Hungarian EU presidency.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso stated for the press that he had
"received reassurances from the (Hungarian) prime minister that the law is
drawn up and will be implemented in full respect of European Union values on
media freedom and relevant EU legislation," and that the Prime Minister
"equally made clear that adjustments would be made, should the commission,
after a legal assessment, find that this is not the case for all aspects of
the law."

The Commission is now to issue a legal opinion on the matter but no official
date has yet been established.

Websites Black-out as Drastic Internet Censorship is Introduced in Hungary

The second wave of legislation by Hungary's new Parliament - Violating the
rule of law (13.12.2010)

Barroso puts the squeeze on Hungary over media law (6.01.2011)

Hungary to change media law if EU deems necessary (7.01.2011)

Hungary to Regulate All Media (31.12.2010)

Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the
Digital Agenda Hungary's new media law Open Hearing on Freedom of the Press
in Hungary European Parliament (11.01.2011)

5. Polish Supreme Court: All electronic press must be registered

On 15 December 2010, in a cassation proceeding, the Polish Supreme Court
decided that all electronic press in Poland must be registered. This
decision goes along the line traced by its 2007 decision of the same
substance, followed by a corresponding press law amendment proposal by the
Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, including obligatory registration
of all "electronic press", both of which were strongly criticized by the
Polish legal doctrine and internet community.

Recently, it seemed that things were improving - the 2010
Ministry of Culture's proposition of press law amendment oozed hope, as it
included a voluntary registration of "electronic media" (giving those
registering the privileges foreseen by the press law such as journalistic
secrecy), excluding from its scope the webpages of personal character, in
particular blogs. This recent Supreme Court decision however reverses the
positive course of the debate and takes Poland three years back in the
discussion on free speech on-line. It must be emphasized that such a Supreme
Court decision is literally contrary to Polish press law regulation, as it
is based on extensive interpretation of criminal press law liability.

The Polish Press Law Act from 26 January 1984 defines "press" as "any
periodic publications which do not constitute a closed, uniform entity,
appearing no less than once a year, having a regular title or name, current
number and date, and in particular: journals, periodicals, news services,
regular fax transmissions, bulletins, radio and television programs and film
chronicles;" but also "any means of mass media, existing or appearing as a
result of technical progress, including broadcasting stations, public
television and radio address systems, that broadcast publications
periodically as print, picture, sound or using any other broadcasting
technique"(Article 7 par. 2 pt. 1). Although arguable, one might consider
some examples of electronic publications as constituting press (rather as a
particular "mean of mass media", then a "periodic publication" of a "closed
form" with a "current number"). Art. 20 of the Press Law Act requires the
registration not of press as such, but only for journals and periodicals.
Such registration should be done with a district court at the place of the
domicile of the publisher.

The Act defines "journals" ("dzienniki") as well as "periodicals"
("czasopisma") in art. 7 par. 2 items 2 and 3. There, a journal is
defined as "a periodic print or a transmission of sound or sound and vision
of general information, appearing no less than once a week", (item 2), while
"a periodical is a periodic print appearing no more than once a week and no
less than once a year; the regulation may also apply appropriately to
transmissions of sound or sound and vision other than described in par. 2."
(item 3). According to Press Law Article 45, publishing a journal or a
periodical without registration may result in a fine or a criminal sentence
of up to 12 months of public service.

It ought to be emphasized that the sentence of the 15 December 2010 decision
sets the administrator of the subject web-page (gazetabytowska.pl) free. The
Supreme Court upholds the decision of the Slupsk district court that did
find the plaintiff guilty of infringing Press Law Article 45, that is
publishing (on-line) a journal or a periodical without registration, however
acquitted him due to the minimal public menace of the offence. The Supreme
Court decision upholds this sentence, which means that it finds that
failure to register an electronic publication constitutes a crime. In an
oral statement, the reporting judge commented that the Court did not aim at
registering the entire content of the Internet but wished for the
obligation of registering press foreseen in Article 7 to be properly obeyed.

It ought to be emphasized that as cited above, Article 7 does not include
an obligation to register press as such - this obligation is foreseen in
Article 20 and concerns only journals and periodicals, meaning "periodic
print or a transmission of sound or sound and vision", so a rare
characteristic for electronic media which are available mainly in written,
electronic form.

This decision goes along the line of the 2007 "Szyciepoprzemysku" decision,
concerning another electronic publication available solely on-line. The
Supreme Court, in its decision from 26 July 2007 (IV KK 174/07) found that
the " deliberations on the fact that, in the light of law, publishing
press in electronic form does not require registration are wrong and
contrary to entrenched doctrine opinions. (...) It is clear, that the
Internet may not be registered (...), just like paper. Paper as such does
not have to be registered, however the printed paper must be registered,
what is more - not the very paper itself, but rather the activity of
printing on it and publishing it in the form of a journal or periodical -
meaning press." It went on to say, that "the person distributing without
registration in the suitable district court, a journal or a periodical on
the Internet, regardless whether such a distribution is accompanied by a
transmission in print, next to its electronic form, or whether it exists
solely in the electronic form on the Internet, suffices to recognize the
crime described in art 45 of Press Law as having been committed."

The core problem with the interpretation presented by the Supreme Court lies
in the wide responsibility of the web-publisher that in this case is the
page-administrator, who, according to the Supreme Court Decision, should
be saddled with all the responsibilities of an Editor in Chief of a
traditional newspaper. The Polish Press Law foresees this responsibility as
encompassing the responsibility for the press material published in the
periodical or journal under his authority. Furthermore, there is no legal
rule allowing for a clear distinction between the web-pages that require
registration and those that do not. Leaving this difficult analysis solely
to web-page administrators seems a task far too heavy for them to shoulder.

What is more, such an obligation, and - following the suggestion of the
Supreme Court - the punishment of the ones who do not fulfil it should be
considered a breach of one of the basic rules of criminal law: nullum crimen
sine lege certa et stricta (this argument was also raised by the defendant
accused in the "Gazeta Bytowska" case and by the Helsinki
Federation). There is no "clear" and "certain" rule of law that tells the
web-administrators of a certain category of web-pages that it is their duty
to register their webpage (a webpage of a certain sort, as it is clear that
not all web-pages may be considered journals or periodicals). Interpreting
that rule out of the existing regulations is an expanding interpretation of
a criminal norm that is inadmissible.

One must not forget that in the Polish legal system, the Supreme Court
Decision is binding solely in the particular case. Nonetheless the role
that the legal interpretations made by the highest legal instance plays in
the further application of legal norms must not be under appreciated.

The decision will not be published, as according to Polish procedural
regulations this kind of decision (a provisional ruling "postanowienie")
need not be done in writing, when the Court finds the claim "clearly
unjustified" and refers to it in an oral statement during a session (such
as this case ).

Polish Helsinki Foundation statement on the decision (only in Polish,

J. Kulesza, Which Legal Standards Should Apply To Web-logs? The present
legal position of Internet journals in the European jurisprudence in the
light of the European Parliament Committee's on Culture and Education report
and Polish Supreme Court decision, Lex Electronica, 2009/3(13)

Supreme Court: online newspapers have to register with the court as well as
paper ones (only in Polish, 15.12.2010)

(Contribution by Joanna Kulesza, University of Lodz, Poland)

6. French law Loppsi 2 adopted by the General Assembly

The so-called Loppsi 2 law (loi d'orientation et de programmation pour la
performance de la sicuriti intirieure - law on guidelines and programming
for the performance of internal security) was approved by the French General
Assembly in its second reading on 21 December 2010 with a large majority and
is now to go under debate in the Senate in the second reading, in a
toughened version.

The law which, among several measures covers a mix of security domains,
asks ISPs to block Internet sites deemed to have child pornographic content,
now includes a version that will no longer require a previous judicial
approval, which is actually against the French Constitution, and which may
lead to abuses.

The law also gives the police the power to install remote spyware on PCs,
although in this case, under judicial control. Yet, these types of
operations seems to have already been undertaken by DRCI (The Direction
Centrale du Renseignement Intirieur - Central Directorate of Interior
Intelligence) even before the implementation of the law.

The approved text also allows for generalised video surveillance in public
places. A very worrying and contested measure is that of giving authorities
the power to limit the use of public data only to people whose "morality"
has been previously verified.

While the draft law waits to enter into its second reading in the Senate, a
group of several French liberty groups, union federations, civil
associations as well as several political parties have called for a general
mobilisation in a protest movement all over the country on 15 January 2011.

"This law prepares a control society based on tension and stigmatisations.
It materialises the phantasm of the interior enemy and assimilates any
contesting act to an attack to the State. It will weaken the prevention and
judicial guarantees," says the call to the manifestation.

The deputies adopt Loppsi law with a great majority (only in French,

LOPPSI 2: they sell off freedoms! (only in French)

Loppsi 2: Return to the contested items (only in French, 7.01.2011)

EDRigram : French law Loppsi 2 under debate again (15.12.2010)

7. RapidShare wins another alleged copyright infringement case

RapidShare, the Swiss based file-hosting service, won the appeal against
the computer game distributor Atari Europe. In March 2010, D|sseldorf
Regional Court ruled that the company had not taken sufficient measures to
hinder the distribution of the computer game "Alone in the Dark" via its

The Higher Regional Court of D|sseldorf has now dismissed Atari's claim
through an amendment of the original ruling, acknowledging RapidShare's
efforts to take measures against the illegal distribution of copyrighted

The Court also ruled against Atari's demands for a keyword filter and an
automatic retrieval and deletion of all files containing certain keywords
considering such a measure as unreasonable and creating the risk of also
deleting legal files that match the same keywords. Other proposed measures
such as a manual verification of suspect files and the removal of links on
third party search engines were considered impossible, unreasonable and

"The ruling demonstrates once again that RapidShare is operating a fully
legal range and has taken measures against the misuse of its service which
go beyond the level that is legally required. We are confident that
copyright holders will gradually come to accept this conclusion," stated
Daniel Raimer, RapidShare's lawyer and spokesman.

This is the second decision of the kind taken by the German court in favour
of RapidShare. In July 2010 The Higher Regional Court of D|sseldorf ruled
against Capelight Pictures giving a similar decision. Also, in May 2009, a
US court ruled that RapidShare was not guilty of copyright

RapidShare wins appeal against Atari (6.01.2011)

RapidShare's Measures Against Piracy Are Sufficient, Court Rules (6.01.2011)

Game over for Atari case against Rapidshare (6.01.2011)

EDRi-gram: Germany: Filtering by keywords is not an obligation for a hosting
company (28.07.2010)

8. ENDitorial: EDRi's data retention workshop at CCC

Two EDRi members, Bits of Freedom and Panoptykon Foundation,
together with one observer Patrick Breyer from AK Vorrat, gave a talk on
data retention and hosted a workshop for activists during the Chaos
Communication Congress (CCC) which is Europe's biggest meeting of the
hacking communities and which takes place every year in Berlin. The 27th
congress was held under the revealing title "We come in peace". During four
days of meetings, hackers, journalists, activists and a few MEPs discussed
the conflicts that threaten freedom in the digital world, the challenges we
will face in 2011, technological discoveries made in 2010 and strategies for

What we prepared for this occasion was an hour-long lecture presented
along with a dynamic slide show. The presentation was composed of five
(i) explanation of how data retention came about and what problems we have
with it;
(ii) overview of key jurisprudence undermining the principle of blanket data
(iii) outcomes of the evaluation process and the state of affairs in the
European Commission;
(iv) cases of abuse from various Member States; and
(v) strategies for further action against data retention.

Our primary goal was to show that the year 2011 will be crucial in the
fight against blanket data retention and therefore we need to create a
broad activist movement and gain more social support to make our voice
heard. We explained how civil society could exert an influence on the
decision makers in Brussels and MEPs and what time frames we faced. We
stressed the need for an EU-wide shadow report to be drafted by March
and published right before the official report by DG Home. Another
point was that we needed to gather data on the use of retention data
from various EU countries, translate it into clear and convincing
messages for the media and prepare a consistent campaigning strategy.

These needs and initial concepts were elaborated during an informal
discussion at our workshop, which was announced in the plenary. CCC
gave us this opportunity to organise our own event on the second day
meant as a discussion space and informal gathering for activists
interested in the data retention campaign. We welcomed about 50 persons
who discussed with us practical aspects of the campaign for nearly two
hours. The energy was high and we felt that another AK Vorrat-type
of mobilisation is possible. As a result of this meeting we decided to
set up provisional discussion tools - a wiki and a mailing list -
where the conversation may continues. Everybody is welcome to join. You
can also do it by e-mailing: info at bof dot nl

Presentation slides (27.12.2010)

Video recording of the talk (27.12.2010)

Summary of the workshop (joint effort, in progress)

Wiki - dedicated to discussion on the campaign name

(Contribution by Katarzyna Szymielewicz - EDRi-member Panoptykon Foundation,

9. Recommended Reading

Report of the "Comiti des Sages" reflection group on bringing Europe's
cultural heritage online (10.01.2011)

Article 29 Working Party - Opinion 8/2010 on applicable law (16.12.2010)

Statewatch is pleased to announce free access to its specialist civil
liberties websites:
1. The Statewatch database with 27 000 articles on civil liberties in Europe
dating back 20 years
2. The SEMDOC website: Statewatch European Monitoring Centre on EU Justice
and Home Affairs policy

10. Agenda

15-16 January 2011, Galway, Ireland
Reset Ireland - action plan for open government and media reform

25-28 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
The annual Conference Computers, Privacy & Data Protection CPDP 2011
European Data Protection: In Good Health?

26 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
Cultural Diversity and Europe 2020: Nuisance or necessity?

23-28 February 2011, Gosier, Guadeloupe, France
ICDS 2011- 5th International Conference on Digital Society

24-25 February 2011, Berlin, Germany
The First OAPEN Conference

11-12 March 2011, Ankara, Turkey
ICEGEG-2011- 3rd International Conference on E-Government and E-Governance

28 March 2011, Paris, France
5th European eAccessbility Forum: Benefits and costs of e-accessibility

1 April 2011, Bielefeld, Germany
Big Brother Awards Germany

17-18 May 2011, Berlin Germany
European Data Protection Reform & International Data Protection Compliance

12-15 June 2011, Bled, Slovenia
24th Bled eConference, eFuture: Creating Solutions for the Individual,
Organisations and Society

11-12 July 2011, Barcelona, Spain
7th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics (IDP 2011): Net
Neutrality and other challenges for the future of the Internet
Abstract submission: 18 February 2011

11. 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 are visible 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

Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram at edri.org>

Information about EDRI and its members:

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.

- EDRI-gram subscription information

subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at edri.org
Subject: subscribe

You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request at edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe

- EDRI-gram in Macedonian

EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations
are provided by Metamorphosis

- 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

- Newsletter archive

Back issues are available at:

- Help
Please ask <edrigram at edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or

----- 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

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list