EDRi-gram newsletter - Number 10.20, 24 October 2012

[EDRi-gram]

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

EDRi-gram

biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

Number 10.20, 24 October 2012

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

1. A week with EDRi Brussels
2. Google needs to improve its privacy practices
3. EDRi responds to umteenth public Net Neutrality consultation
4. Turkey: Internet Report on digital rights 2012
5. Google threatens to exclude the French online press from its search
6. Dutch proposal to search and destroy foreign computers
7. Details on German State Trojan programme
8.  Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About

=======================================================================
1. A week with EDRi Brussels
=======================================================================

Now that EDRi has taken up home in its new office in Brussels, we
thought that it might be interesting to share a brief insight into what
a typical week looks like for us. The truth is that there is no typical
week, they are all wonderfully diverse. But just to give you a small
taste of what it can be like, here is how EDRi's office agenda looked
like last week::

Monday: Following some feverish work over the weekend, the final touches
were put to our response to the consultation on net neutrality from the
European Commission. We also continued our work on our position paper on
the Directive on Collective Rights Management, which is at the start of
the legislative process in the European Parliament.

Tuesday: At lunchtime, our Executive Director took part in a lively
debate organised by the European Telecommunications Networks Operators
association (ETNO) and the GSM Association on the lack of consistency
between the proposed General Data Protection Regulation and the existing
E-Privacy Directive. The event was chaired by the MEP in charge of the
dossier in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee of the
European Parliament (Italian EPP Member, Laura Comi). Other panellists
were the European Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinx, Lars
Kindervater from Deutsche Telekom, Giuseppe Abbamonte from the European
Commission and Cristina Vela from ETNO.

On Tuesday evening, we also took part in an event at the Google office
on activism.

Wednesday: After months of cooperation with EDRi's members, our
bprotectmydata.eub website dedicated to the review of the European Data
Protection framework was launched. The website is the product of months
of deliberation with members and observers, with a lot of the hard work
being done by our current and former interns, particularly Elena
Cantello and Owe Langfeldt.

Our attention then turned to providing a comprehensive analysis of Laura
Comi's draft Data Protection Opinion, which was communicated to the
European Parliament and uploaded to our website today. Despite the
number of concerns we have with the draft, we have already had very
positive and constructive feedback from Ms Comi.

On Wednesday afternoon, we took part in a hearing organised by Bulgarian
Socialist MEP Ivalo Kalfin on the World Conference on International
Telecommunications (WCIT). The other participants were Amelia
Andersdotter (Sweden, Greens/EFA, Pirate Party), Eddy Hertog (European
Commission) and Luigi Gambardella (ETNO).

Thursday: In the morning, EDRi was one of the speakers at an event
organised by the Progressive Group of Socialists and Democrats in the
European Parliament entitled bCopyright: What is broken, how to mend
it.b The meeting was opened by Group President Hannes Swoboda and
Vice-President Sylvie Guillaume. Other speakers included the Institute
for Information Law from the University of Amsterdam, the Association of
European Performers' Organisations, the European Digital Media
Association, Google, Deezer and the European Consumers' Bureau.

On Thursday afternoon, we welcomed a delegation from the Dutch Police
Academy. This is the second year where EDRi has participated in the
European module of the further education programme of the academy. This
year, we discussed the review of the European data protection framework.

Friday: We participated in the European Commission's (DG Connect)
half-day meeting on bcybersecurity from a societal perspectiveb. The
event brought together a small group of cyber-security experts from
around Europe to discuss European Commission funding under the
Horizon2020 research programme in the security field.

Through the week, we continued to receive applications for the post of
bsenior office managerb. This is a post we need to fill in order to
allow our policy staff to focus on policy and to ensure that we can
build on our recent growth to defend citizens' rights online even more
effectively.

EDRi's new office contacts
http://www.edri.org/newoffice

EDRi website with comments on draft EU data protection legislation
http://protectmydata.eu

Net neutrality consultation response
http://edri.org/files/15102012-EDRi_response_NN_915674309211628912.pdf

Video of WCIT meeting
http://webcasts.barouhandpartners.com/wcit2012/another_regulatory_threat_to_the_internet

Presentation to the copyright event
http://edri.org/files/copyright_presentation_20121018.pdf

EDRi job vacancy - Office Manager
Deadline - 6 November 2012
http://jobs.euractiv.com/node/84224

(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)

=======================================================================
2. Google needs to improve its privacy practices
=======================================================================

On 16 October 2012, a letter signed by the 27 European Data Protection
Authorities (DPAs) was sent to Google, asking for better privacy
practices of the company, accusing Google of illegality and putting into
question the viability of the companybs operations within the European
legal environment.

Following Googlebs decision to update its privacy policy starting with 1
March 2012 by combining about 60 different policies for its online
services (search, Gmail, YouTube, Google+, and others ) into a single
user privacy agreement, Article 29 Working Party mandated the French DPA
(Commission Nationale de lbInformatique - CNIL) to lead an investigation
into the new  Google privacy policy. CNIL sent two questionnaires to
Google but the company's answers were considered incomplete and
approximate, especially on key issues such as the description of its
personal data processing operations or the precise list of the
product-specific privacy policies merged in the new policy.
Based on CNIL findings, Data Protection authorities have drawn their
common conclusions and made a series of recommendations.

One of the major point of criticism is that  "....Googlebs answers have
not demonstrated that your company endorses the key data protection
principles of purpose limitation, data quality, data minimization,
proportionality and right to object. Indeed, the Privacy policy suggests
the absence of any limit concerning the scope of the collection and the
potential uses of the personal data." The EU DPAs ask Google to publicly
commit to these principles. They also recommend that the company
provides more clear information to its users on the data collected and
purposes of its personal data processing operations,
gives a better control over the combination of data across its numerous
services and modifies its tools so as to avoid excessive data collection.

One example given in CNILbs findings is related to credit card
information: "Confidentiality rules do not make difference in treatment
between a trivial content search and the number of credit card or
telephone user. All these data can be used interchangeably for all the
purposes mentioned in rules."

The DPAs recommend that Google reinforces the users' consent to the
combination of data for the purposes of service improvements,
development of new services, advertising and analytics, by letting users
choose when their data are combined. Google should have a legal basis to
perform data combination of these purposes and data collection must also
remain proportionate to the purposes pursued. For the present, for some
of these purposes, the processing is not based on
consent, Google's legitimate interests, or on the performance of a
contract. Moreover, Google refused to provide retention periods for the
personal data it processes.

Google was given three to four months to comply with the recommendations
or face sanctions.

Letter from 27 European DPAs to Google (16.10.2012)
http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/en/20121016-letter_google-article_29-FINAL.pdf

Appendix - Google Privacy Policy - Main Findings and Recommendations
(16.10.2012)
http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/en/GOOGLE_PRIVACY_POLICY-_RECOMMENDATIONS-FINAL-EN.pdf

Google's new privacy policy: incomplete information and uncontrolled
combination of data across services (16.10.2012)
http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/googles-new-privacy-policy-incomplete-information-and-uncontrolled-combination-of-data-across-ser/

European Data Regulators Slam Google Over Privacy Policy: bToo Largeb
And Users Need More Control (But Not Illegal) (16.10.2012)
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/16/eu-data-regulators-slam-google-over-privacy-policy-its-too-large-and-users-need-more-control/

Europe to Google: respect our laws or face the consequences (16.10.2012)
http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/europe-to-google-respect-our-laws-or-face-the-consequences/

=======================================================================
3. EDRi responds to umteenth public Net Neutrality consultation
=======================================================================

This might sound like a running gag, but on 15 October 2012 EDRi
submitted its umteenth response to the European Commission's umteenth
consultation on net neutrality, traffic management, transparency and
switching. As explained in the previous EDRi-gram, this is now the sixth
consultation since Commissioner Neelie Kroes took office as the European
Commissioner for the digital agenda.

This new consultation elegantly ignores the European Parliament's
resolution from last year in which it asked the Commission to present,
within six months of the publication of BEREC's findings (29 May 2012),
its views on "whether further regulatory measures are needed in order to
ensure freedom of expression, freedom of access to information, freedom
of choice for consumers, and media pluralism, to achieve effective
competition and innovation." Since then, Commissioner Kroes not only
received evidence from BEREC that network operators are indeed
implementing blocking, degrading and the throttling of services,
applications and content everywhere in Europe, she also managed to
ignore the evidence gathered by the respectmynet.eu platform and
displayed on netneutralitymap.org.

It was therefore no surprise that answering the Commission's
questionnaire was quite a challenge: Some of the questions made us worry
that the Commission had somehow forgotten how the internet works, while
some others clearly suggested that the Commission has since long given
up on its initial commitment to net neutrality. For instance, the
questionnaire started with a brief introduction to traffic management in
which the Commission stated that btraffic managementb is ba wide range
of technical practicesb and concluded that they can all be treated as if
they were just one phenomenon, which is bab legitimate tool. In our view
however, if the Commission believes that anti-competitive traffic
management is, from a policy perspective identical to undertaking an
urgent security measure then its competence to be running the
consultation needs to be called into question. In addition, it was
rather shocking to learn that the Commission is apparently not familiar
with the European Data Protection Supervisor's opinion on net
neutrality, traffic management and the protection of privacy in which he
clearly warns that deep packet inspection (DPI) techniques have serious
implications in terms of privacy and data protection. Lack of awareness
of the EDPS opinion is the only explanation we can imagine for question
number 10 of the consultation: "Are there any privacy risks arising from
the use of DPI for traffic management purposes?" We cannot find any
charitable explanation for the question "Are there alternative
techniques for traffic management that do not involve deep packet
inspection?".

As we already explained in our response to a previous consultation on
net neutrality and transparency, it is false and dangerous to assume
that transparency and switching are major tools to achieve the
regulatory objective of maintaining an open and competitive Internet. We
have demonstrated that transparency policies do not provide all the
necessary guarantees for a neutral and competitive Internet - which
implies the necessity to support immediate regulation and to promote net
neutrality as an objective for regulatory authorities.

In view of the evidence the Commission's reaction of obfuscation, delay
and distraction is simply incomprehensible.

EDRi's response to the net neutrality questionnaire (15.10.2012)
http://edri.org/files/15102012-EDRi_response_NN_915674309211628912.pdf

European Parliament resolution on Net neutrality (17.11.2011)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0511&language=EN&ring=B7-2011-0572

European Data Protection Supervisor's opinion on net neutrality, traffic
management and the protection of privacy (7.11.2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/activities/peter_hustinx_presentation_%281%29_15_rt_2011.pdf

(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)

=======================================================================
4. Turkey: Internet Report on digital rights 2012
=======================================================================

On 28 September 2012, the Turkish Internet Report 2012 was issued by
EDRi observer Alternative Informatics Association showing a worrying
tendency of Internet censorship and control from Turkish authorities.

According to the report, more and more case have been filed against
citizens for sharing "illegal content" on social networks. Such sharing
on social networks started to be taken as bevidenceb for criminal
charges such as membership of a terrorist organization and insults to
bvalues and beliefsb. Astronomic penalties are demanded for very young
detainees on the grounds that they make propaganda on social networks.

While some States call bhacktivistb groups like Anonymous and LulzSec a
bcyber threatb in a pre-cautious manner, Red Hack, which is a group of
the same kind, is declared to be a bterroristb organization in a legally
disputable way. Moreover, according to some news, a prosecution is
likely to be started against several people following Red Hack on
Twitter for they are said to be the bsympathizers of a terrorist
organizationb. Social media sharing is turned into an offence by the new
university discipline legislation; people are being arrested for the
things they have posted or shared on social networks.

On 8 September 2012, turk.internet.com  declared that the Ministry of
Health blacklisted about 200 websites because they misinform the public
on some health problems such as losing weight, heart diseases and
diabetics. The Ministry of Health established cooperation with the High
Council for Telecommunication (TIB) for filtering throughout this
process. Following this, it was announced on 14 September 2012 that the
websites in question that cover some news portals, announcements,
promotion campaigns and various digital equipment had been filtered as
their content was harmful. However, this process, which poses a threat
to the circulation of information and the freedom of expression, also
proves that the public is unaware of the technical difference between
blocking and filtering a website.

TTNET, which owns the Internet backbone in Turkey and is the biggest
Internet Service Provider (ISP) of the country, signed a business
agreement in 2012 with the company called PHORM. After the experience of
UK market, Phorm built an interface in which the userbs permission is
asked. However, the system and the interface are still tricky. When the
browser is closed without declining, the system opts-in the user as a
lame website trick. Right after the beginning of the online campaign on
Enphormasyon.org, Phormbs staff in Turkey began PR
activities. On the other hand, TTNET that is responsible to its
subscribers for providing continuous connection to the Internet and
having been redirecting the users to the Phormbs site, has remained
silent since 18 September 2012. Alternative Informatics Association has
called the Information and Communications Technologies Authority (ICTA)
for inspecting the system of Phorm and made an official complaint to the
prosecution office on 17 October 2012.

Some recent cases in Turkey have also proven that such events accelerate
the production and circulation of hate speech online. The control on the
social networks through the instant access denial is justified with
sharing on social media. Particularly the Prime Ministerbs statement
that bThere must be regulations against Islam-phobia in Muslim
countriesb ignores the hate speech in different areas (political hate
speech, hate speech against women, foreigners, immigrants, sexual
identity, belief and sect- oriented hate speech). Given that even the
existing laws are not completely and properly applied, is very difficult
if not impossible to prevent hate speech through laws. From this
perspective, Internet users must be very well informed about hate speech
as well as the limits of democracy and freedom of expression. There is
also a need to carry out educational activities in this field.

bSafe Internetb, which is a filtering application, was carried into
effect on 22 November 2011 by ICTA. This filtering is composed of
family&child filtering and standard user options and the filtering words
designated by ICTA are sent to all ISPs. Therefore, the words and
websites to which access is prohibited/denied are determined by the
State itself. Moreover, the application is not transparent at all. It
narrows the freedom of expression and imposes one single family/child
projection on the citizens. Protection of children and family cannot be
a justification for the Statebs censorship. The filters in question can
absolutely not offer a solution to safety issues. Safe Internet use can
be ensured not with filters but through digital literacy. Among the OSCE
countries, the only country that allows central filtering is,
unfortunately, Turkey.

Based on Engelliweb.com information, currently access to 20 792 websites
is blocked in Turkey.

What has happened on the Internet in Turkey in 2012? bProgress
Report"(28.09.2012)
https://yenimedya.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/what-has-happened-on-the-internet-in-turkey-in-2012-progress-report/

200 websites blocked by the Ministry of Health (only in Turkish, 21.09.2012)
http://www.turk.internet.com/portal/yazigoster.php?yaziid=38850,

To the attention of all internet users and citizens!...(on PHORM in Turkey)
http://www.enphormasyon.org/english.html

Complaint against Phorm (only in Turkish)
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Phorm_su%C3%A7_duyurusu

Using Social Media for Hate Speech is not Freedom of Expression!
(31.01.2012)
https://yenimedya.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/using-social-media-for-hate-speech-is-not-freedom-of-expression/

Disabled web: Number of blocked websites in Turkey by category (only in
Turkish)
http://engelliweb.com/kategoriler

EDRi-gram: Turkish plans to use IDs for accessing the Internet (10.10.2012)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number10.19/turkey-ids-internet-usage

(Contribution by TuDrul Comu - EDRi observer Alternative Informatics
Association - Turkey)

=======================================================================
5. Google threatens to exclude the French online press from its search
=======================================================================

GESTE, a French group of online editors, has been trying for a few years
now to get part of Googlebs revenues generated by its news service with
indexed titles.

"Google has developed on our contentb said Corinne Denis, President of
GESTE who also stated for C	dition MultimC)di@: bWe have been discussing
with them for years on this topic. And if they have kept their promise
to never sell advertising on Google News, by including the news on their
search engine, they have cleverly avoided the obstacleb.

Therefore GESTE supports a new draft law, so-called blex Googleb
(already presented in the last EDRi-gram), that may introduce a fee on
hypertext links. A bfair remunerationb would be introduced through a fee
applied on hypertext links. The draft law also introduces a three-year
prison and a 300 000 Euro fine for reproducing or making available ball
or part ofb press contents, without authorisation.

Facing the perspective of a fee imposed on hyperlinks, Google threatens
with excluding the French online press from its searching index. The
company believes it has already done enough by bringing traffic to the
sites it references.

Google stated that what the draft law was meant for, was actually to
interdict unpaid referencing. bAccording to the draft text that has been
circulated since September, a new related right is to be created for a
5-year exclusive period, that would make mandatory the previous
authorisation of press bodies for bany reproduction, making available
for the public for sale, the exchange or communication to the public,
online included, of all or a part of the press contents edited under
their responsibilityb.b

Last year, Google already excluded several Belgium newspapers from its
index following a court decision taken a few months before. The
situation was however resolved after a off-court settlement between the
parties involved.

Google threatens to ban the French press from its searching engine (only
in French, 18.10.2012)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24050-google-menace-de-bannir-la-presse-francaise-de-son-moteur-de-recherche.html

For GESTE, Google is not a milk cow but it still has to pay (only in
French, 13.10.2012)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/24015-pour-le-geste-google-n-est-pas-une-vache-a-lait-mais-doit-payer-quand-meme.html

The facts about our position on |French copyright proposals (18.10.2012)
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-facts-about-our-position-on-french.html

The damaging effects of a draft law meant to interdict unpaid references
of press articles in France (only in French, 10.1012)
https://docs.google.com/viewer?srcid=0B92admnS83NKc3pULU5DZkdzQnM&pid=explorer&efh=false&a=v&chrome=false&embedded=true

EDRi-gram: Ancillary copyright madness in Germany and France (26.09.2012)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number10.18/ancillary-copyright-proposal-madness

=======================================================================
6. Dutch proposal to search and destroy foreign computers
=======================================================================

On 15 October 2012, the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security proposed
powers for the police to break into computers, install spyware, search
computers and destroy data. These powers would extend to computers
located outside the Netherlands. EDRi member Bits of Freedom warns for
the unacceptable risks to cybersecurity and calls on other countries to
strongly oppose the proposal.

The proposal would grant powers to the Dutch police to break into
computers, as well as mobile phones, via the internet in order to:
- install spyware, allowing the police to overtake the computer;
- search data on the computer, including data on computers located in
other countries; and
- destroy data on the computer, including data on computers located in
other countries.

If the location of the computer cannot be determined, for example in the
case of Tor-hidden services, the police is not required to submit a
request for legal assistance to another country before breaking in.
Under the current text, it is uncertain whether a legal assistance
request would be legally required, or merely preferred, if the location
of the computer is known. The exercise of these powers requires a
warrant from a Dutch court.

This proposal poses unacceptable risks. If the Dutch government gets the
power to break into foreign computers, this gives other governments the
basis to break into Dutch computers which infringe the laws of their
country. The end result could be less security for all computer users,
instead of more. This is even more true with regard to the power to
destroy data on foreign computers; it is likely that other governments
would be very interested in using such a power against Dutch interests.

Furthermore, providing the government the power to break into computers
provides a perverse incentive to keep information security weak.
Millions of computers could remain badly secured because the government
does not have an incentive to publish vulnerabilities quickly because it
needs to exploit these vulnerabilities for enforcement purposes.

In addition, spyware is difficult to control. Research from the
EDRi member Chaos Computer Club demonstrates that, even though spyware
from the German police was intended to be used to intercept only Skype
calls, it could in practice be extended to take over the entire
computer. In addition, the spyware itself could be remotely hacked by
criminals as well, allowing them to take over the computer of a suspect.

The risks above do not even touch on the privacy-issues yet. Breaking
into a computer infringes the privacy not only of the suspect, but of
all non-suspects whose data is also on the computer. And, somewhat
related to this, the value of evidence gathered via these methods is at
the least less obvious and will be harder to assess in court. The
digital nature of the investigation makes it harder to prove that
evidence was not fabricated or perhaps destroyed by the police.

A legislative text implementing the highly controversial proposal will
be introduced to the Parliament in the coming months. The law does not
only concern the Netherlands: it concerns all countries whose
IT-infrastructure may be affected. Bits of Freedom therefore calls on
other countries to oppose the proposal. Laws like these make the
internet a more dangerous place.

Dutch Proposal (only in Dutch, 15.10.2012)
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/10/15/wetgeving-bestrijding-cybercrime/wetgeving-bestrijding-cybercrime-1.pdf

CCC research on German police spyware (only in German, 26.10.2011)
http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2011/analysiert-aktueller-staatstrojaner

EDRi-gram: German police accused of using a Trojan backdoor for
interceptions (19.10.2011)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.20/german-trojan-backdoor

(Contribution by Ot van Daalen - EDRi member Bits of Freedom - Netherlands)

=======================================================================
7. Details on German State Trojan programme
=======================================================================

Some documents spotted by the Annalist blog that were issued by the
German Government in July 2012, within a parliamentary enquiry about
expenditures by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, clearly
show more details about what was revealed a year ago by EDRi member CCC
(Chaos Computer Club) - that the German police has been spying and
monitoring Skype, Google Mail, MSN Hotmail, Yahoo Mail and Facebook
communications. The tool used by the police is a Trojan programme
created by Digitask company, the so-called bStaatstrojanerb.

The German law allows the police to use data interception tools on
computers for eavesdropping, but the Constitutional Court has introduced
certain limitations interdicting the use of such tools to access private
data or take control of a suspectbs computer. In 2011, the Ministry of
Justice promised to give up the initial Trojan virus and have new
software created internally: bThe software by DigiTask GmbH that was
used in the past for computer surveillance (lawful interception) is not
currently being used by federal public authorities any more. The
software that will be used for computer surveillance will be developed
by a competence centre established within the Federal Criminal Police
Office. It will be safeguarded that the source code will be audited
regarding its range of functions by qualified experts. It will also be
accessible for the relevant authorities for data protection (among
others the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection).b

But the recent governmental expenditure documents show also that the
German Government is far from being able to produce software for lawful
interception that complies with the decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court.

bThe development of software by the Federal Criminal Office is
presumably going to take months if not years. We may even have to
ruefully admit that we lack the capability completely,b stated the
spokesman on domestic policy of the Conservative Party.

In France as well, since Loppsi2 legislation has come into force in
2011, the police is allowed to place spyware on the computers of people
suspected by various crimes. This surveillance is however carried out
under the authority of a judge who needs to explain why its usage was
needed in that respective case.

Hacker News Puzzle (17.10.2012)
http://annalist.noblogs.org/post/2012/10/17/hacker-news-puzzle/

One year later:German police unable to develop bstate trojanb  (12.10.2012)
http://annalist.noblogs.org/post/2012/10/12/one-year-later-german-police-unable-to-develop-state-trojan/

German police monitors Skype, GoogleMail and Facebook chats (3.10.2012)
http://annalist.noblogs.org/post/2012/10/03/german-police-monitors-skype-googlemail-and-facebook-chat/

German Gov't Inadvertently Reveals Police Monitor Gmail, Skype, Facebook
& Use Snooping Malware (10.10.2012)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121009/08281520662/german-govt-inadvertently-reveals-police-monitor-gmail-skype-facebook-use-snooping-malware.shtml

German police spyware is also targeting Skype, Gmail, Facebook...(only
in French, 10.10.2012)
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/23989-le-mouchard-de-la-police-allemande-vise-aussi-skype-gmail-facebook.html

=======================================================================
8. Recommended Action
=======================================================================

Islands of Resilience Comparative Model for Energy, Connectivity and
Jurisdiction Realizing European ICT possibilities through a case study
of Iceland
Request for comments will remain open until 1 November 2012
http://www.islandsofresilience.eu

=======================================================================
9. Recommended Reading
=======================================================================

EuroISPA reacts on the controversial CleanIT Project (23.10.2012)
http://www.euroispa.org/component/content/article?id=76

Article 29 Working Party - Opinion 08/2012 providing further input on
the data protection reform discussions (5.10.2012)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2012/wp199_en.pdf

Neelie Kroes Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for
the Digital Agenda Online privacy and online business: An update on Do
Not Track The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)/Brussels
(11.10.2012)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-716_en.htm

Slovakia Adopts FOI Act Amendments on Re-use (22.10.2012)
http://epsiplatform.eu/content/slovakia-adopts-foi-act-amendments-re-use

=======================================================================
10. Agenda
=======================================================================

25-28 October 2012, Barcelona, Spain
Free Culture Forum 2012
http://fcforum.net/

3-4 November 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan
Best Bits b a strategic gathering of NGOs around Internet governance and
Internet principles
http://igf-online.net/bestbits.pdf

6-9 November 2012, Baku, Azerbaijan
Seventh Annual IGF Meeting: "Internet Governance for Sustainable Human,
Economic and Social Development"
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/

9-11 November 2012, Fulda, Germany
Digitalisierte Gesellschaft - Wege und Irrwege
FIfF Annual Conference in cooperation with Fuldaer Informatik Kollquium
http://www.fiff.de/2012

29-30 November 2012, Brussels, Belgium
For Your Eyes Only: Privacy, Empowerment and Technology in the context
of Social Networks
http://www.foryoureyesonly.be

4 December 2012, Brussels, Belgium
3rd Annual European Data Protection and Privacy Conference
http://www.eu-ems.com/summary.asp?event_id=123&page_id=983

27-30 December 2012, Hamburg, Germany
29C3 - Chaos Communication Congress
http://events.ccc.de/category/29c3/

23-25 January 2013, Brussels, Belgium
CPDP 2013 Conference - Reloading data protection
CfP by 2 November 2012
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/callforpapers.html

21-22 March 2013, Malta
Online Privacy: Consenting to your Future
CfP by 3 December 2012
http://www.onlineprivacyconference.eu/

6-8 May 2013, Berlin, Germany
re:publica 2013
http://re-publica.de/12/2012/08/28/der-termin-steht-vom-06-08-mai-2013-geht-die-republica-in-die-siebte-runde/

31 July b 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
https://ohm2013.org/

============================================================
11. About
============================================================

EDRi-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRi has 32 members based or with offices in 20 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.

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
http://flattr.com/thing/417077/edri-on-Flattr

- 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/mk/vesti/edri

- EDRI-gram in German

EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are
provided by 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