EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 9.2, 26 January 2011

[EDRI-gram newsletter]

============================================================

         EDRi-gram

biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

  Number 9.2, 26 January 2011

============================================================
Contents
============================================================

1. EDRi responds to data protection consultation
2. EC's leak describes blocking as "challenging", "costly" and ineffective
3. EU institutions want clarifications form Hungary on its media legislation
4. European Commission concerned over illegal eavesdropping in Bulgaria
5. Romanian NGOs demand stopping data retention in Europe
6. Spain: Right to be forgotten and Google
7. Sarkozy wants a "civilised" Internet
8. ENDitorial: EDRi publishes study on self-regulation and censorship
9. Recommended Action
10. Recommended Reading
11. Agenda
12. About

============================================================
1. EDRi responds to data protection consultation
============================================================

Building on the analysis produced for the European Commission's initial data
protection consultation in 2009, European Digital Rights has submitted its
second round of comments on the review of the 1995 Data Protection
Directive.

One of EDRi's primary concerns with regard to the existing legal framework
is the lack of predictability - due to vast differences in the way basic
parts of the Directive are understood by Member States' authorities and
courts as well as the powers and resources of national data protection
authorities. This led EDRi to the conclusion that a directly applicable EU
Regulation is needed, rather than the current situation, where 27 Member
States have to implement a Directive into their national law, leading to
these diverging implementations.

Another core problem to address is the plummeting costs of data processing
which causes more and more data to be collected and used. Such processing
will lead to ever-greater risks being taken with personal data unless legal
provisions ensure that the risk-reward balance for data processors is
adapted appropriately.

Processing of personal data by states comes in for particular criticism in
EDRi's submission. The actions of Member States must be consistent with what
they expect from private companies, and there are many examples of this not
being the case. There are numerous examples of electronic patient records,
e-government systems and public transport payment systems which do not
respect "privacy by design", data minimization and other key principles.
Worse still, the broad exception given to Council of Europe Member States in
that institution's Recommendation on profiling, which accepts in principle
that the most basic of privacy protections, may be set aside by European
governments.

Regarding data processing by companies, EDRi welcomes many of the policies
described in the Commission Communication, such as data minimization, the
right to be forgotten, rights of access and erasure of data etc, but points
out that many of these rights are already in the existing legislation. The
task at hand, therefore, is not to re-legislate for existing rights, but to
establish why these rights are not readily enforceable.

Concerning new technologies, EDRi suggests that there are three trends
which need to be taken into account - the exponential growth in personal
data processing capabilities, the growing disconnection between data
processing and physical location and the Internet of Things.

In order to improve implementation, EDRi called for increased
implementation powers for national data protection authorities (DPAs) as
well as a targeted reduction in the administrative burden. The reduction of
the administrative burden should (and must) lead to national DPAs having
more time and resources to devote to practical improvements in privacy
protection for data subjects.

Both the change of legal environment as a result of the Lisbon Treaty and
the increasing trend for data collected by private companies to be used for
policing purposes means that it is essential to include data collected for
policing purposes in the Directive. A strong data protection framework is
the minimum price that should be paid for the levels of police and security
cooperation that are currently demanded and enacted within the EU and
between the EU and third states.

EDRi believes that a Regulation would be a better instrument to
ensure clarification and simplification of rules for international data
transfers. EDRi believes that the current "safe harbour" exceptions result
in an opaque and unaccountable situation for data subjects. At the same
time, EDRi feels very strongly about retaining the base principle that
personal data should not be exported to jurisdictions without safeguards
that are materially similar to those within the European Free Trade Area.

Finally, EDRi drew attention to a separate consultation that overlaps with
the Commission's work on Data Protection - the Communication on the IPR
Enforcement Directive. This latter Communication seeks to undermine the
fundamental right to privacy by suggesting an opaque effort to "rebalance"
rights to the benefit of so-called property rights. It is entirely and
obviously unacceptable that the European Commission can simultaneously be
negotiating ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights and
seeking to undermine its core provisions.

EDRi response to 2010 Communication on Data Protection Directive revision
(15.01.2011)
http://www.edri.org/files/20110115_EDRi_data_protection_final.pdf

European Commission 2010 Communication on Data Protection Directive
revision (4.11.2010)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0006/com_2010_609_en.pdf

Data Protection Reform Strategy: EDPS sets out his vision for the new
framework (18.01.2011)
http://www.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2011/11-01-14_Personal_Data_Protection_EN.pdf

Communication on IPR Enforcement Directive (22.12.2010)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0779:FIN:EN:PDF

EDRi response to 2009 Consultation on Data Protection Directive revision
(13.01.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.1/position-data-protection-review

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

============================================================
2. EC's leak describes blocking as "challenging", "costly" and ineffective
============================================================

A leaked draft of the European Commission's (EC) Green Paper on gambling
provides some valuable insights into the Commission's views on web blocking.
Firstly, contrary to Commissioner Malmstrvm's repeated promises to the
contrary, the leak shows that the Commission has no objections in principle
to blocking being used against content other than child abuse. The document
states that blocking of unlicensed gambling websites "might be justified".
The draft policy document goes on to describe what it sees as a key
advantage of DNS blocking - that it can be used to hijack users' connections
to direct them to approved sites.

Nonetheless, while in favour of blocking in principle,  the document
explicitly recognises that blocking is "technically challenging and costly"
and that blocking will leave a "significant" residual level of illegal sites
publicly available. In particular, and this is of importance for blocking in
relation to child abuse material, the document says that regular updating of
a blocking list will be "costly" - a point studiously avoided by the
European Commission in the blocking debate so far.

Meanwhile, the Civil Liberties Committee of the European Parliament is
getting ready for its vote on blocking next week. 342 amendments have been
tabled to the Child Exploitation Directive as a whole, with 45 addressing
the issue of Internet blocking. While there is a large consensus that
blocking should not be mandatory on Member States, there is a wide
divergence of opinion on whether blocking should be promoted or not by the
Directive and whether "non-legislative" measures should be encouraged as a
means of achieving blocking.

Among MEPs that have been diligently working on the dossier in the 22 months
since the original proposal was made, there is widespread agreement that
neither blocking nor non-legislative measures should not be promoted.
However, numerous amendments have been tabled by MEPs that have never spoken
in a single debate on the issue. When the vote happens, therefore, all will
hang on the efforts by activists to contact MEPs and persuade them that
blocking is dangerous and that extra-judicial actions by Internet access
providers to restrict access to content would be wrong and contrary to the
most basic principles of fundamental rights.

Draft European Commission Green Paper on online gambling in the Internal
market (01.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/jan/eu-com-draft-green-paper-on-internet-gambling.pdf

EDRi's web blocking campaign page
http://www.edri.org/stop_web_blocking

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

============================================================
3. EU institutions want clarifications form Hungary on its media legislation
============================================================

The Hungarian EU Presidency was met on 19 January 2011 with opposition and
criticism due to the controversial media legislation Hungary has recently
introduced. Some MEPs displayed white banners that read
"censored".

Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime-Minister started his speech by stating
that the Hungarian government was willing to change the legislation if the
European Commission finds it to be at fault, as the law is presently under
its legal review to establish whether it contravenes the EU law. Orban added
that Hungary would follow the EC opinion provided it was scrupulously
objective, and insisted that Hungary should be treated like any other EU
member state. Also, that a separation should be made between Hungary's EU
presidency and Hungary's internal affairs.

Several MEPs expressed the opinion that the legislation ought to be scrapped
entirely. The new law establishes a Media Council (MC) to ensure "balanced"
reporting, and requires all media types to be registered, including online
media such as forums and blogs.

Miklos Haraszti, former OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media,
explained that there are actually five interconnected legislative acts
introduced in Hungary since June 2010 that were passed in a rush, at the end
of the year, without any consultation.

According to the corroborated legislation, all media (including the
Internet) are bound to provide "comprehensive, factual, up-to-date,
objective and balanced coverage on local, national and European issues that
may be of interest for the general public and on any event bearing relevance
to the citizens of the Republic of Hungary and members of the Hungarian
nation." In Haraszti's opinion, the obligation of the registration for all
news providers (including print and Internet-based ) is specifically
forbidden in the Council of Europe guidelines.

The new Hungarian legislation stipulates high penalties, from 90 000 to
722000 Euro for infringements such as the provision of content that may
potentially hurt any community. In order to verify the violations, MC may
access any data, including legally protected information.. Refusal to offer
the required data may bring a fine of up to180 000 Euro to any media
provider..

The legislation thus puts the entire media under the power of a single
governmental authority and, according to Judit Bayer, associate professor
of media law at King Sigismund College in Budapest, the law is
"unquestionably a serious attack on press freedom, and contrary to Article 2
of Lisbon Treaty, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

On 21 January 2011, the European Commission sent a letter to the Hungarian
government, giving them two weeks to answer the concerns related to this
law. In case of an inadequate answer, Hungary may face legal action.

"The commission services have serious doubts as to the compatibility of the
Hungarian legislation with Union law," wrote Vice-President of the
Commission in charge of the Digital Agenda, , Neelie Kroes.

The letter also refers to the provisions of the law that allow Hungary to
fine broadcasters based outside the country for what is deemed hate
speech, as well as the mandatory registration of all media, including
websites, which appear to be incompatible with EU rules.

Orban meets barrage of MEP criticism over media law (19.01.2011)
http://euobserver.com/9/31669/?rk=1

Hungary's Media Law Package (16.01.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/jan/hungary-haraszti-media-law-package.pdf

Hungary's new law a threat to democracy (17.01.2011)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2011/01/hungary-media-law/

EC to inform Hungary about concerns with media law this week (19.01.2011)
http://www.politics.hu/20110119/ec-to-inform-hungary-about-concerns-with-media-law-this-week

EU gives Hungary two weeks to reply on media law (22.01.2011)
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/363678,hungary-reply-media-law.html

EDRi-gram: New media law in Hungary allows Internet censorship (12.01.2011)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.1/media-law-hungary-blocks-internet

============================================================
4. European Commission concerned over illegal eavesdropping in Bulgaria
============================================================

Based on a request for access to public information, Dnevnik daily newspaper
has been able to access and publish information showing that a
third of the wiretaps in Bulgaria have no proper legal coverage, being
performed without an authorisation from a judge.

This is possible due to a "flexible" formulation of the procedure for
requesting the interception of a person's communications. An internal
directive issued by Boris Velchev, the prosecutor-general allows prosecutors
to request eavesdropping without the authorisation of a judge when a
criminal investigation has been opened.

According to Dvevnik, based on this procedure, 2 767 such cases of illegal
eavesdropping have already taken place in seven months. The daily also
revealed that, according to economists, Bulgaria spends 50 times more than
the UK on eavesdropping.

While the Bulgarian press reveals a significant increase of eavesdropping
under the government of Boyko Borissov, the Bulgarian Prime-Minister
justifies the government eavesdropping as an important instrument in
fighting organised crime.

The European Commission has recently requested information from the
Bulgarian authorities related to the legality of the eavesdropping
activities, following leaks into Galeria tabloid concerning taped phone
conversations in which apparently Boyko Borissov spoke of the need to
"protect" a controversial businessperson from customs checks. As a result of
the scandal in the press, Borissov asked for a vote of confidence in the
Parliament, which he won on 20 January 2011.

The ALDE group submitted on 21 January 2011 a question to the Commission
asking clarifications over the application of the Bulgarian wiretap law,
which infringes the Bulgarian Constitution, the provisions of the Lisbon
Treaty, the ECHR and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"The current Bulgarian scandal over the escalating use of Special
Intelligence Means is a stain on the image of Bulgaria in the same way as
the Hungarian media law this week taints the international image of that
country. The data collected from the special services in Bulgaria is leaking
widely and the only independent mechanism for control over the special
services has been abolished. There is a widespread paranoia spreading
amongst Bulgarian society. The European Commission should step in and uphold
the rights of Bulgarian citizens under EU law before this situation gets out
of hand," said ALDE MEP Stanimir Ilchev.

The European Commission is expected to present a report in February on
progress made by Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
monitoring procedure.

One third of eavesdropping in Bulgaria illegal (21.01.2011)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/third-eavesdropping-bulgaria-illegal-news-501461

Wiretap scandal rocks Bulgarian government (18.01.2011)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/wiretap-scandal-rocks-bulgarian-government-news-501300

Any third monitoring of GSM and the Internet has no control (only in
Bulgarian, 22.01.2011)
http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2011/01/20/1028603_vsiako_treto_sledene_na_gsm_i_v_internet_e_bez_kontrol/

Eavesdropping scandal in Bulgaria: Commission must investigate (21.01.2011)
http://www.alde.eu/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/eavesdropping-scandal-in-bulgaria-commission-must-investigate-36918/

EDRi-gram: Protests in Bulgaria against eavesdropping and data retention law
(13.01.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.1/bulgarian-protests-data-retention

============================================================
5. Romanian NGOs demand stopping data retention in Europe
============================================================

In an open letter sent to the European institutions, several Romanian NGOs,
including EDRi-member APTI Romania, demanded stopping data retention in
Europe, following the decisions of the Constitutional Courts in Romania and
Germany.

The letter asks the European Commission to take advantage of the evaluation
process of the Data Retention Directive in order to correct the mistakes of
the past and to nullify the Directive, as it has been shown there are
difficulties in obtaining the relevant data regarding the efficiency of such
a system. The Commission has also received clear examples of abuses and
adverse effects on privacy.

The signatories underline that a Romanian implementation of the EU Directive
on data retention is impossible, after the 2009 decision of the
Constitutional Court that considered that the fundamental scope of the law
(and thus of the Directive)  - legal obligation to continuously and
indiscriminately store telecommunication data- is unconstitutional.

They are also asking the competent European institutions to take note of the
irreconcilable conflict between the telecommunication data retention and the
human right to privacy and to act accordingly to respect the principles
in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The text is meant to remind, support and respect the decision of the
Romanian Constitutional Court and not to put an EU Member State in a
position that will breach its constitutional texts: "The decision stipulates
that keeping all traffic data for all Romanian citizens is a measure that
breaches human rights, as foreseen by the Romanian Constitution. Thus 'the
legal obligation with a continuous character, generally applicable, of data
retention (...) harms in an unacceptable way the exercise of the right to
privacy or the freedom of expression.'"

Telecommunication data retention must be stopped in Europe (26.01.2011)
http://www.apti.ro/pastrare-date-trafic.pdf

Decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court (8.10.2009)
http://www.legi-internet.ro/english/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-it/romanian-constitutional-court-decision-regarding-data-retention.html

EDRi-gram: Data Retention Directive evaluation: expect the unexpected?
(15.12.2010)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number8.24/evaluation-data-retention-directive

============================================================
6. Spain: Right to be forgotten and Google
============================================================

The Spanish data protection authority (AEPD) has recently been focusing on a
privacy-related campaign against major Internet intermediaries, accusing
them to "have crossed the red line" in regard to protection of personal data
on the Internet. Facebook, Google or Myspace are under scrutiny for their
privacy policies and how they are respected.

On 17 January 2010, AEPD accused Google of invading personal privacy of
users, arguing the company was in breach of the "right to be forgotten", the
Spanish law allowing people to control information about them. The Spanish
Authority ordered the search engine company to remove links to more than 100
Spanish online articles and to delete links to websites that contained out
of date or inaccurate information about a specific individual that
complained to the AEPD.

Google argues that deleting results "would be a form of censorship",
that the company, as an intermediary, is not liable for the content of the
materials it links to. Moreover deleting content is not the role of search
engines but of publishers.

"We are disappointed by the actions of the Spanish privacy regulator.
Spanish and European law rightly hold the publisher of the material
responsible for its content. Requiring intermediaries like search engines to
censor material published by others would have a profound, chilling effect
on free expression without protecting people's privacy," stated Peter
Barron, Google's director of external relations for Europe.

But even if Google loses the case, the articles blocked by the search engine
will still be available on the websites of the newspapers and journals that
published the respective articles. However, Google will have to delete
information about the concerned individuals from its Spanish site and
respond to another 88 cases also brought to the Spanish regulator.

The case is closely followed by the European Union because its outcomes may
have implications outside Spain, having in view that EU has already
announced looking at how the application of the right to be forgotten is
implemented in the online world. "Internet users must have effective control
of what they put online and be able to correct, withdraw or delete it at
will. What happens if you want to permanently delete your profile on a
social networking site? Can this be done easily? The right to be forgotten
is essential in today's digital world." said Viviane Reding, European
Commission's Vice-president, in a statement made in November 2010.

Building Trust in Europe's Online Single Market Speech at the American
Chamber of Commerce to the EU Brussels - Viviane Reding speech (22.06.2010)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/10/327

Google fights Spanish privacy order in court (20.01.2011)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12239674

Google fights Spanish court order over libel (17.01.2011)
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14771969,00.html

AEPD Director warns that the large Internet company has crossed "several red
lines" of the respect to privacy (only in Spanish, 12.2010)
https://www.agpd.es/portalwebAGPD/revista_prensa/revista_prensa/2010/notas_prensa/common/diciembre/101201_NP_comparecencia.pdf

Google search engine, ripe for judgment (only in Spanish, 22.01.2011)
http://www.larazon.es/noticia/5222-el-buscador-google-visto-para-sentencia

============================================================
7. Sarkozy wants a "civilised" Internet
============================================================

With France at the Presidency of the G20 group in 2011, Nicolas Sarkozy has
recently announced the intention to convene a G20 meeting to discuss
Internet and copyright issues, before the full G20 summit of heads of state
and government in Cannes in November.

The French President has had the same discourse for some time now, having
pushed the idea of a "civilised" Internet on various occasions since the
signature in November 2007 of the so-called "Olivennes agreement", which
established the Hadopi authority.

The subject of a "civilised" Internet will also be discussed during the G8
meeting that will take place in Deauville, France, on 26 and 27 May 2011.
"We will table a central question, that of a civilised Internet (....).We
cannot consume as never before images, music, authors, creation, and not
ensure the property rights for the person who put all the emotion, talent
and creativity (...). The day we no longer remunerate the creation, we will
kill the creation" said Sarkozy.

In the French government's opinion, expressed by Deputy Muriel
Marland-Militello, France is the "world's pioneer of the civilised
Internet", thanks to Hadopi.

A pioneer who obstinately continues its efforts to promote its repressive
three-strikes system with every occasion. In October 2010, an international
conference on online freedom of expression was supposed to be organised by
French minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner.  A letter sent by
Nicolas Sarkozy to Houchner shows that Sarkozy was trying to take the
opportunity of the conference to promote Hadopi law establishing the
three-strikes system.

In Sarkozy's opinion, the conference provided "the opportunity to promote
the balanced regulatory initiatives carried on by France during these past
three years, and in particular the HADOPI law in the field of copyright."

In the meantime, Hadopi presented on 23 January 2011, on the
occasion of MIDEM 2011 (Marchi International du Disque et de l'Edition
Musicale - International Market of the Record and Musical Edition) the
results of its first study, performed between 25 October and 4 November
2010, on Internet usage in France.

The study revealed that half of the French Internet users engage in alleged
illegal downloads. A rather unpleasant finding for Hadopi is that 29 % of
the "pirates" admit to having started downloading during the last 6 months,
meaning after the introduction of Hadopi law and the issuing of the first
warnings by the authority. Moreover 50% of the "pirates" stated they did not
intend to change their habits, irrespective of the authority's actions.

The study has also revealed that the persons who illegally download
cultural goods are also the ones that spend more on culture than others who
do not. The main obstacle to legal consumption of digital cultural goods is
the price for 37% of users, while for 21% of them the reason is a lack of
offer diversity, and only 13% state they are more used to "illegal
consumption."

The findings of the report are not quite in favour of Hadopi and only prove
the inefficiency of the system.

Sarkozy wants a G20 of the copyright for a "civilised Internet" (only in
French, 19.01.2011)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/17849-sarkozy-veut-un-g20-du-droit-d-auteur-pour-34un-internet-civilise34.html

Sarkozy Exports Repressive Internet (21.10.2010)
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/sarkozy-exports-repressive-internet

Hadopi presents its study: 50 % of the pirates don't want to change (only in
French, 24.01.2011)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/17864-l-hadopi-presente-son-etude-50-des-pirates-ne-veulent-pas-changer.html

Hadopi, Cultural goods and Internet use: the French users' practices and
perceptions (only in French, 23.01.2011)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47451295/hadopiT0

============================================================
8. ENDitorial: EDRi publishes study on self-regulation and censorship
============================================================

European Digital Rights has published a study on the scale of measures being
undertaken to outsource policing activities to private companies in the
Internet environment and its significance for fundamental rights,
transparency and openness on the Internet.

Internet intermediaries around the world are taking on more important roles
in their states' efforts to address the dissemination of illegal online
content and this trend is likely to become stronger as we move into a new
environment of "extra-judicial sanctions" against consumers. With some
notable exceptions, these activities are being forced onto Internet
intermediaries rather than being demanded by them.

The study found that the term "self-regulation" is being inappropriately
used to describe what is not self-regulation at all, but the monitoring,
policing and even punishing of alleged illegal activities of citizens.
Proposed legislation and "non-binding guidelines" are forcing intermediaries
into a position in which they can no longer avail themselves of legal
protections - where they are obliged, in effect, to police private online
communications, often in blatant disregard of legal safeguards and even to
impose sanctions for alleged infringements.

Should Internet intermediaries become privatised enforcement systems? The
measures recently taken by Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and EveryDNS against
WikiLeaks are a case in point. Even without WikiLeaks being charged with any
particular crime, private companies have acted unilaterally against it.

The devolved enforcement initiatives documented in the report aim to
persuade industry to engage in a vigilante system of monitoring and
sanctioning; the report catalogues current international proposals, which
include:

- a series of ongoing "public-private dialogues" organised by the
European Commission to encourage hosting providers to engage in
extra-judicial rulings of illegality;
- a 2010 European Commission funding proposal incentivising
companies to engage in "self-regulatory" Internet blocking of allegedly
illegal online material;
- discussions launched by the Council of Europe's Assembly in 2010
whose intention appears to be to increase the legal obligations of
intermediaries, despite the fact that this would be "contrary both to the
letter and the spirit of the 2003 Declaration on freedom of communication on
the Internet";
- 2010 OECD discussions, which aim to increase the responsibility of
Internet intermediaries in advancing "public policy objectives";
- the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that contains provisions
that would encourage or coerce ISPs into policing their
networks and enforcing extra-judicial sanctions, where they deem it to be
appropriate;
- an OSCE consultation in 2010, the aim of which was to explore ways
to enable ISPs to "'regulate' online legal or illegal 'hate speech'"';
- EU/India and EU/Korea bilateral free trade agreements that would change
the EU acquis on intermediary liability.

The encouragement of extra-legal measures to limit access to information,
proactive policing of the Internet and the exclusion of law enforcement
authorities in investigating serious crimes are factors that contribute to
the weakening of the rule of law and democracy. Indeed, by taking
responsibility away from legal authorities, such measures can result in
serious crime, such as the publication of child abuse material online, being
addressed by industry through cosmetic measures (such as blocking) rather
than proper investigation and prosecution.

While these appear to be regressive steps away from freedom, the study
found, for instance, that the European Commission appears far from perturbed
by the dangers for fundamental rights of this approach and appears keen to
export the approach. This process is gradually strangling the openness that
is at the core of the Internet. This openness has enhanced democracy, has
shaken dictatorships and has boosted economies worldwide. This openness is
what we will lose through privatised policing of the Internet by private
companies - what will we gain?

EDRi report: The slide from "self-regulation" to corporate censorship
(24.01.2011)
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_selfreg_final_20110124.pdf

Text of the press releas also available in:
German
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRi_pressemiteilung_deutsch.pdf
Swedish
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRi_pressmedel_svenska.pdf
French
http://www.edri.org/files/EDRi_communique_francaise.pdf
Hungarian
http://www.edri.org/files/magyar_sajtokozlemeny_EDRi_jelentes.pdf
Slovak:
http://www.soit.sk/sk/aktualne/oit-vo-svete/2011-01-26/106-nova-studia-dokumentuje-vzrastajucu-ulohu-sukromych-spolocnosti-pri-vykonavani-dozoru-nad-online-komunikaciou

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

============================================================
9. Recommended Action
============================================================

Opinion of European Academics on ACTA
Open for signatures until 7 February 2011
http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/acta-1668.html
http://www.iri.uni-hannover.de/tl_files/pdf/ACTA_opinion_200111_2.pdf

============================================================
10. Recommended Reading
============================================================

ACTA Blog: Certainly, the professors should know the difference between
'shall' and 'may' (25.01.2011)
http://acta.ffii.org/wordpress/?p=390

ENISA: Review of the current situation in the implementation of data breach
notifications requirement, set up by the Article 4 of the reviewed ePrivacy
Directive (14.01.2011)
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/media/press-releases/new-report-data-breach-notifications-in-europe
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/act/it/dbn/

Statewatch analysis: Six months on: An update on the UK coalition
government's commitment to civil liberties (21.01.2011)
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-118-uk-civil-liberties-six-months-on.pdf

The Commission is publishing the statistics and the responses to the on-line
public consultation on the PSI Directive. The full analysis of the
responses will be published in the form of a report in the coming weeks.
(20.01.2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm

============================================================
11. Agenda
============================================================

25-28 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
The annual Conference Computers, Privacy & Data Protection CPDP 2011
European Data Protection: In Good Health?
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/

26 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
Cultural Diversity and Europe 2020: Nuisance or necessity?
http://conferences.euobserver.com/cultural/index/

28 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
Joint High Level meeting on Data Protection: "Data protection (30 years
later): from European to international standards?"
http://www.data-protection-day.net

31 January 2011, Brussels, Belgium
Public Workshop on indicators for the independence and efficient functioning
of AVMS regulatory bodies
http://cmcs.ceu.hu/news/31-january-public-workshop-indicators-independence-and-efficient-functioning-avms-regulatory-bo

23-28 February 2011, Gosier, Guadeloupe, France
ICDS 2011- 5th International Conference on Digital Society
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2011/ICDS11.html

24-25 February 2011, Berlin, Germany
The First OAPEN Conference
http://meetings.copernicus.org/oapen2011/

11-12 March 2011, Ankara, Turkey
ICEGEG-2011- 3rd International Conference on E-Government and E-Governance
http://www.icegeg.com/index.html

28 March 2011, Paris, France
5th European eAccessbility Forum: Benefits and costs of e-accessibility
http://inova.snv.jussieu.fr/evenements/colloques/colloques/70_index_en.html

1 April 2011, Bielefeld, Germany
Big Brother Awards Germany
http://www.bigbrotherawards.de/index_html-en

17-18 May 2011, Berlin Germany
European Data Protection Reform & International Data Protection Compliance
http://www.edpd-conference.com

12-15 June 2011, Bled, Slovenia
24th Bled eConference, eFuture: Creating Solutions for the Individual,
Organisations and Society
http://www.bledconference.org/index.php/eConference/2011

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
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/7th-international-conference

============================================================
12. About
============================================================

EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 29 members based or with offices in 18 different
countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and
awareness through the EDRI-grams.

All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are
most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and 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
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

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

Information about EDRI and its members:
http://www.edri.org/

European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the
EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a
private donation.
http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring

- EDRI-gram subscription information

subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request 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
http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edri/2.html

- EDRI-gram in German

EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided
Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for
Internet Users
http://www.unwatched.org/

- Newsletter archive

Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/edrigram

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

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE