*In which European civil libertarians learn that covert spy operations by foreign powers are illegal.
======================================================================
EDRi-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 11.12, 19 June 2013
Contents
1. EDRi letter to the US Embassy on PRISM
2. US agencies have unlimited access to Internet data
3. The Spanish Police might use spying Trojans on individuals’ computers
4. Media Freedom and Pluralism in Europe
5. The EU PNR is delayed by MEPs, but the Russian PNR arrives
6. The German Parliament urges the government to limit software patents
7. Still no access to ACTA documents
8. ENDitorial: #ResistSocialMedia in Turkey
9. Recommended Action
10. Recommended Reading
12. Agenda
12. About
1. EDRi letter to the US Embassy on PRISM
On 18 June 2013, EDRi delivered the following letter in a frank exchange
of views with the US Embassy on PRISM & data protection:
European Digital Rights would like to thank you for the invitation to
meet with you today. We welcome the opportunity to have a discussion
with you on current issues of great importance to citizens on both sides
of the Atlantic.
However, we would also like to express our profound disappointment with
regard to recent revelations about the PRISM programme and the
underlying legal framework (FISAAA in particular), which provides the
domestic legal basis for this activity. We expect and demand better from
the United States of America.
We would also like to express our disappointment at the behaviour of the
United States during the discussions surrounding the proposed European
Regulation and Directive on data protection.
Regarding PRISM, widespread untargeted surveillance leads to
self-censorship, the discouragement of dissent, the restriction of
freedom of assembly and the restriction of freedom of communication. In
such an environment, democratic discourse and participation are the
ultimate casualties. Untargeted surveillance imposed in societies which
have had no democratic choice in the matter, which have neither been
consulted nor informed of this infringement of their basic rights is a
double affront to democracy. The fact that the foreign power (regardless
of who that foreign power is) that imposed these restrictions believes
that its domestic procedures are adequate to minimise the risks of this
surveillance is wholly irrelevant. When the President of that foreign
power then seeks to reassure his own citizens that the surveillance only
covers foreigners (who do not even have the same rights before US courts
as US citizens), this heaps insult onto injury. We expect better.
Regarding the European legislative proposals on data protection, while
we recognise the right of the United States to give its views on
relevant legislation in the European Union, we expect and demand an
appropriate degree of respect for our democratic processes. The US
intervention in the drafting process of the Regulation, even before the
text was formally available to citizens in Europe, was wholly
inappropriate. The resulting successful deletion of provisions to
protect the fundamental rights of European citizens against access by
foreign governments went far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in
a democratic society. The use of an "informal note"1, distributed to the
Commission without traceability to the US government, fell far below the
minimum standards one should be able to expect from the United States.
We were also shocked by your speech at the Forum Europe Conference where
you referred to "the regulation’s requirement for explicit consent in
all circumstances", which is simply false. We expect and demand better
from the United States than misrepresentations of this nature.
It was possibly even more surprising to see a second "informal note"2
being circulated by the US authorities in January of this year. We were
also disappointed by the frantic, alarmist and essentially groundless
nature of that document. We stress that the United States has the right
to make its views known in this process - but it has to stand behind its
statements. Both in terms of process and content, the circulation of the
informal paper fell, yet again, beneath the standards that we should be
able to expect from the United States. The contradiction between the
paper's call for respect for the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) on the one hand, and the unequivocal breach of
Articles 17 and 19 of that instrument by the PRISM programme is quite
simply astonishing.
In summary, we demand:
- that the USA desist from any and all foreign data collection measures
that are not part of appropriate mutual legal assistance agreements that
have treaty status;
- that any foreign data collection measure include provisions giving all
affected individuals, at the very least, equal rights to US citizens at
all stages of an investigation and, to avoid “jurisdiction-shopping”,
rights that are not significantly lower than any democratically approved
safeguards in their country of residence;
- that the USA desist from any and all data collection measures which
are not targeted and not based on concrete suspicions;
- that the USA desist in future from lobbying on proposals that have not
been released by the European Commission;
- that the USA only communicate future position papers to the European
Union that are clearly identifiable as documents emanating from the US
administration.
We say all of this not because we do not respect the United States, but
because we do. We expect better because we know that we can expect better.
The EDRi letter in a PDF format (18.06.2013)
http://edri.org/files/20130618_kennard_letter.pdf
(Contribution by Joe McNamee - EDRi)
2. US agencies have unlimited access to Internet data
According to documents obtained by The Washington Post and the Guardian,
NSA and FBI are extracting e-mails, photographs, documents, video and
audio chats directly from the central servers of nine leading U.S.
Internet companies, within a programme called PRISM which has not been
made public until now.
As one of the documents mentions, the companies in question are:
Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.
The British equivalent of NSA, GCHQ appears to gather the same type of
data from the same companies, through PRISM which allows them to
circumvent the formal British legal process for obtaining personal
material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company
based outside of the country.
Also, an anonymous source from within the Dutch intelligence services
revealed to the Dutch De Telegraaf, the unlimited access the authority
has to the data of civilians and enterprises. Although this access
should be limited by internal procedures, these services can apparently
take information easily through PRISM. Similar activities were reported
in Belgium or Germany.
The US have no comprehensive federal privacy legislation but have
instead spying measures like the PATRIOT Act and FISAAA in place.
Moreover, the constitution only covers US citizens, putting foreign
users of cloud services under very little protection from US government
intrusion.
To make things worse, the EU has failed in the process of adopting a
proper data protection regulation. The initial draft of the regulation
has been weakened by the US strong lobby. Safeguards meant to create a
legal foundation when transferring data to third countries were removed
as a direct result of the US pressure. “Bizarrely, the majority of
commissioners decided that they wanted to give up this strategic
advantage, in return for, it appears, nothing,” explains Joe McNamee,
the executive director of EDRi.
In addition to watering down the proposed Regulation, countries like the
UK are trying to delay the process and subsume it into the EU-US free
trade agreement (TTIP/TAFTA), which would subordinate a fundamental
rights discussion to a trade negotiation.
Dutch Liberal deputy, Sophie in't Veld, told EUobserver that she hoped
the PRISM scandal "could help raise awareness" of the issues in Brussels
and believes the European Commission must take a tougher position in
future US talks. "I am somewhat surprised everybody is getting so
excited about this latest scandal. It is just one of the many examples
of the US tapping into our data without telling us. And of the EU
commission doing nothing about it," in't Veld said.
U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies
in broad secret program (7.06.2013)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
EDRi: PRISM explains the wider lobbying issues surrounding EU data
protection reform (10.06.2013) http://edri.org/prism
Bits of Freedom: Dutch spooks must stop use of PRISM (translation of a
Dutch press release, 11.06.2013)
https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/
'We try to collect everything and hang on to it forever': US
intelligence agencies' cosy relationship with academia and business may
be hard to unwind (10.06.2013)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-try-to-collect-everything-and-hang-on-to-it-forever-us-intelligence-agencies-cosy-relationship-with-academia-and-business-may-be-hard-to-unwind-8652934.html
Germany most snooped EU country by US (10.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120431
US defends spy programme to sceptical EU (14.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120505
Belgium had access to the data in PRISM (10.06.2013)
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063
3. The Spanish Police might use spying Trojans on individuals’ computers
A draft Criminal Procedure Code issued by the Spanish Ministry of
Justice, authorises the police to install trojans on computers from
surveyed individuals.
According to Article 350 of the proposed draft, prosecutors may ask the
judge for “the installation of a software that allows the remote
examination and without knowledge of the owner, of the content in
computers, electronic devices, computer systems, instruments of massive
storage or databases.” The measure is meant for crimes with punishments
over 3 years, for terrorism, cyber crime and organised crime.
Moreover, the draft text says that official agents may require
cooperation from “anyone who knows the operation of the computer system
or measures applied in order to protect data held there", meaning
experts, “hackers”, ISPs or other computer companies.
The draft has raised serious concerns related to privacy as well as to
possible abuses. One of the most disturbing issues is the fact that
there is no limit saying that such a computer programme will be limited
to spying. There is no reference to what happens next with the data
obtained. After the installation of the programme, the possibilities are
unlimited.
Experts, such as Juan Carlos Ortiz Pradillo, from the University of
Castilla-La Mancha, explained that if the draft remains as such, Spanish
authorities will also have access to passwords that citizens use for
their email, social network profiles, bank accounts and other online
services.
Alberto Sáiz, a specialist in interventions in communications, stated
the proposal was very invasive from the point of view of the fundamental
rights, affecting the individual’s privacy as well as the communication
secret in an extensive way. The expert considers that the range of
crimes covered by the draft is too extensive and not precise enough.
In addition, companies will have to collaborate with the police if they
require the installation of surveillance systems, something that will go
against privacy rights and data protection rules.
Spanish police might use trojans to spy computers (4.06.2013)
http://www.neurope.eu/article/spanish-police-might-use-trojans-spy-computers
The police will be able to use Trojans to investigate computers and
tablets (only in Spanish, 3.06.2013)
http://sociedad.elpais.com/sociedad/2013/06/03/actualidad/1370289646_865495.html
Trojans in my computer? Possible? So what? (only in Spanish, 5.06.2013)
http://www.internautas.org/html/7603.html
Legalising the use of Trojan viruses by the police puts in question
citizen fundamental rights (only in Spanish, 6.06.2013)
http://www.internautas.org/html/7604.html
4. Media Freedom and Pluralism in Europe
At the beginning of the year, the European Commission's High Level Group
on Media Freedom and Pluralism published a report and presented several
recommendations to protect and promote a free and pluralistic media in
Europe.
In order to collect feedback on the report and recommendations, the
European Commission launched a public consultation to which EDRi
responded on 14 June (see link to full answer below). The consultation
intended to open the discussion on media freedom without, however,
detailing any possible follow-up actions or concrete measures envisaged
by the Commission.
Firstly, we emphasised that, in order to efficiently implement Article
21 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is only credible on the
global stage when press and media freedoms are safeguarded and respected
within the Union itself. We highlighted the fact that support for
quality journalism can only be achieved with appropriate protections for
whistleblowers and demanded that the Commission propose an instrument to
provide legal protections.
Secondly, we highlighted the importance of safeguarding freedom of
speech in our democratic, open and free societies, especially with
regard to the digital environment. It is true that the Internet in
itself can act as a guarantor of freedom of opinion and expression.
These fundamental rights need to be safeguarded by the rule of law and
legislative frameworks. We therefore especially welcomed the expert
group's recommendation to enshrine Net Neutrality in EU law. As we have
pointed out in answers to previous consultations by the Commission and
BEREC, there is a growing body of evidence that access providers
restrict and limit access to the Internet in Europe. A regulation of Net
Neutrality would avoid certain industry players becoming gatekeepers on
behalf of media organisations, with power over citizens' communications
and their rights to freedom of expression and to impart and receive
information.
Expert group's recommendation 12 proposed that “services that provide
heavily personalised search results or newsfeeds should provide the
possibility for the user to turn off such personalisation, temporarily
for an individual query, or permanently, until further notice”. We
pointed out that any such personalisation or individualisation measures
usually requires the collection and cross-linking of personal data which
could represent a fundamental threat to privacy as well as a danger to
pluralism and access to knowledge.
With regard to recommendation 23, we expressed concerns regarding the
very vague, dangerous and possibly counter-productive wording and
suggested a deletion of the recommendation:
“Member States should ensure that appropriate instruments are put in
place for identifying those responsible for harming others, even in the
online space. Any internet user‐data collection necessary for this
purpose should be kept confidential and made available only by a court
order.”
Finally, we pointed out that the expert group's definition of media or
“journalistic activities” might need further explanation. Actions to
protect freedom of speech and freedom of the media should encompass both
traditional media and the digital world - news is increasingly produced
and consumed not only by the traditional press but also by bloggers,
citizen reporters and social media producers.
EDRi's response to the consultation (06.2013)
http://edri.org/files/062013-MediaFreedomPuralism-final.pdf
Consultation
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/public-consultation-independent-report-hlg-media-freedom-and-pluralism
High Level Group, report (01.2013)
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/HLG%20Final%20Report.pdf
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
5. The EU PNR is delayed by MEPs, but the Russian PNR arrives
On 10 June 2013, the MEPs were supposed to vote on the recommendation of
EP LIBE Committee (Civil liberties committee) to reject an EU passenger
data retention system (Passenger Name Records or PNR), proposed by the
EU Commission. Yet, a majority of MEPs decided to refer it back to LIBE,
following a request by British MEP Tim Kirkhope. He cited "technical
reasons" for the request and the ECR group said that the file was
originally rejected in the same LIBE Committee because of a “random” or
“accidental” majority.
Yet, some of the members accuse political interests. "Referring the
anticipated decision on the draft EU PNR system back to the civil
liberties committee is a cynical act of chicanery. The committee voted
to recommend the rejection of the PNR system, due to concerns about its
disproportionate and far-reaching nature, and this recommendation should
have been put to the vote this week. The EP's conservative
draftsperson/rapporteur is trying to pull a fast one simply because the
committee's recommendation did not suit his agenda. The concerns with
the proposed system have not in any way diminished. If anything, with
the latest revelations about US infringement of the privacy rights of
European citizens, we should be even more cautious about establishing
more data grabbing and profiling systems. Against this background, it is
to be hoped that the committee delivers the same negative verdict on the
EU PNR system and that the democratic process is allowed to run its
course,” stated Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA).
Meanwhile, starting with 1 July 2013, the EU airlines, will be forced
to hand over passengers' personal data, such as credit card details, to
Russian security services, under a new decree passed by Russia in July
2012, without EU knowledge, to establish a PNR and then request
passenger data from airlines companies for all flights passing through
Russia.
Kirill Ivanov, a spokesman for Russia's EU ambassador, told EUobserver
that Moscow had published the full text of its new PNR law in September
2012 even if it did not send a special notice to Brussels.
"These measures can hardly be qualified as unexpected … the EU had
sufficient time to prepare for this document entering into force,"
said the spokesman.
Dutch Liberal Sophie in 't Veld, considered that the European Commission
should have been aware of the issue and that the commissioner in charge
of the dossier, Sweden's Cecilia Malmstrom had had a "passive …
bureaucratic … mysterious" approach on the matter.
She also drew attention over the fact that, by signing EU-US PNR, the EU
position in the negotiation with Russia and other countries has been
weaken, as the EU can’t deny to others what has accepted to give to the
Americans. Several other countries are also planning to impose PNR
regimes on EU passengers, such as Canada, India, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, "It's only a matter
of time before China starts collecting data as well," she said.
The serious issue is that many of these countries, including Russia,
have a track record of potential data abuses infringing human rights.
EU PNR vote prevented by chicanery, as data protection concerns abound
(10.06.2013)
http://www.greens-efa.eu/passenger-dataprivacy-9999.html
European Parliament delays vote on sharing passenger data with US
authorities (11.06.2013)
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/061113-european-parliament-delays-vote-on-270689.html
Russia blames EU for airline data fiasco (11.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120450
EDRi-gram: Call for Action: Vote on the retention of air passenger data
(PNR) (5.06.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/action-vote-on-PNR
6. The German Parliament urges the government to limit software patents
On 7 June 2013, the German Parliament unanimously decided upon a joint
motion to limit software patents urging the government to take measures
in this sense. In the German MPs’ opinion, supported by several SME
associations, software should be covered exclusively by copyright, and
the rights of the copyright holders should not be devalued by third
parties' software patents.
The joint motion was introduced in the Parliament in April and after a
first hearing, the legal committee held an external expert meeting on
13 May where most of the participants, including representatives from
the industry, SME associations and other experts and groups such as the
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), supported the motion.
According to the motion, the only exception where patents should be
allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or
electromagnetic component. The Parliament also made clear that the
actions of the Government related to patents must never interfere with
the legality of distributing Free Software.
The Parliament acknowledges that, in actual practice, especially that of
the European Patent Office (EPO) — software-related patents have been
granted in the guise of “technical procedure” or “technical equipment”
that would be necessary to use the respective software.
“The number of software - related patents granted by the EPO alone has
been estimated in the high five - digit range. This situation leads to
substantial legal uncertainty for software developers: the abstract
nature of the patent claims means that a software - related patent
encompasses all of the separate embodiments of the protected problem
solution in concrete computer programs. Computer programs which contain
protected problem solutions may not be utilised commercially without the
consent of the patent holder.
The software developers affected by this situation lose de facto the
exploitation rights intended under copyright laws to the computer
programs they have themselves created and are exposed to unpredictable
cost and liability risks in the event of commercial utilisation. In
addition, patent-protected components of software solutions are
fundamentally irreconcilable with the terms and conditions of licences
for largely open source software. There are justified fears that the
general economic consequences of this situation will be a tendency to
monopolisation in the software sector and the correspondingly negative
consequences for innovation dynamics and the labour market,” says the
text of the motion.
At an expert meeting in the Parliament on 13 May 2013, the industry
associations BIKT and BITMi proposed changes to German copyright and
patent law. One proposal was to add a "protective shield" clause in the
German copyright law, to introduce a blanket ban on the enforcement of
patent claims related to software. Another proposal was to provide
clauses in the German patent law ensuring that the effect of patent
claims would not extend to works protected independently by copyright.
The organisations present at the expert meeting also warned against
giving all the responsibility to the EU which, in their opinion, has
been incapable of providing legal certainty for software developers
until now. "Germany now has to implement this decision in law, to send a
strong signal towards Brussels," says Johannes Sommer of BIKT, one of
the associations.
"Since the EU has decided to give away its power to make rules on the
unitary patent, this step towards limiting patents on software is all
the more important", stated Matthias Kirschner, FSFE's coordinator for
Germany.
German Parliament tells government to strictly limit patents on software
(12.06.2013)
https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130612-01.en.html
Motion Proposed by the Parliamentary Groups of the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and
BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN Securing Competition and Innovation Dynamics in
the Software Sector (16.04.2013)
http://www.bikt.de/fileadmin/redakteur/pdf/1713086_en.pdf
Software patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents
7. Still no access to ACTA documents
Today, 19 June 2013, the European Commission answered within the time
limit it had set for itself to answer to DFRI's requests for ACTA
documents. On 29 May 2013 the Commission extended the time limit with 15
working days arguing the "new time limit" was statutory under Article
7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The Commission explained it had to
extend the period by 15 working days because its reply to DFRI was
"circulating for signature by the hierarchy" and that "circulating for
signature by the hierarchy" is an "exceptional case" under the same article.
The answer EDRi member DFRI received today was not signed by anyone but
the sender of the email. Neither did it contain any ACTA documents.
The Commission argues that: "The question of the Court to the
Commission, being a procedural document, does not fall within the scope
of Regulation 1049/2001 as Article 15(3) of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) specifies that the Court is
only subject to obligations on Transparency when exercising their
administrative tasks. This has as consequence that the document itself
can't be disclosed by the Commission."
Email from European Commission refusing disclosure of ACTA documents
(19.06.2013)
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-response-2013-06-19.txt
Email from European Commission extending deadline (29.05.2013)
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EC-extending-deadline-2013-05-29.txt
All ACTA documents @ DFRI website
https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/
(Contribution by EDRi member DFRI - Sweden)
8. ENDitorial: #ResistSocialMedia in Turkey
The wave of resistance that started at Gezi Park on the 29 May 2013 in
Istanbul and has since spread all over Turkey once again revealed a
deep connection between real time communication on social media and
social movements. Throughout the protests, social media platforms have
become the primary news source in this environment where the
mainstream media have proven themselves to be the site of
disinformation or inertia. But even more importantly, social media
have become indispensable as a source of information for those who
have been actively organizing on the ground, cooperating with
different national and international groups, showing solidarity,
gathering evidence against the security forces and providing medical
and legal assistance.
As #DirenGeziPark (#ResistGeziPark) gained in momentum and the role
of social media in the course of the events became evident, the Prime
Minister and other spokespersons of the government started publicly
denouncing these media platforms.
Each statement and press release from the government targeted at
disqualifying social media as an untrustworthy and dangerously
manipulative source of information.
In an interview, the Prime Minister declared that social media is a
"menace to society" and it is full of slander and lies. Vice-Prime
Minister Bulent Arinc stated that social media platforms are centers
of mass manipulation and the government could block/cut off access if
they wanted. What is most unfortunate in Arinc's statement is the
government's open threat to put further constraints on the basic
freedoms associated with the use of the Internet. But the threats
were not limited to legal constraints, AKP's social media advisor Ali
Sahin claimed that "A false tweet is more dangerous than a car bomb.
Legal arrangements regarding social media is a must" and hinted at an
upcoming arrangement to control the Internet based on dubious legal
grounds using disciplinary actions.
A number of disciplinary interventions with respect to current use of
social media have already occurred. Istanbul Governor Huseyin Avni
Mutlu mentioned today plans for a "social media operation". The
attorney General of the Republic in Ankara received a court decision
to investigate the cellular phones of 230 citizens in custody, most
probably with the intention to examine social media use as well as the
social networks of these citizens.
As Alternatif Bilisim, we object to the scapegoating of the social
media through denunciations by government spokespersons. On social
media platforms, citizens of Turkey have found an opportunity to
instantly share with the world the events unfolding on the streets as
well as their democratic demands. It was through this mediated
communication that it was possible to put on the map the
disproportionate and excessive use of force by the police, an ongoing
situation that was eventually admitted by the government, including
the Prime Minister. Without the mediation of social media, authorities
and those interested could not have been informed as extensively of
the extend and brutality of the events occurring on the streets.
Social media platforms hence functioned as communication outlets that
filled the gap left wide open by the mainstream media. The latter
remained blind to the events and avoided any "critical" reporting.
Numerous cases of violation of fundamental rights as well as police
violence have been documented by citizens and brought to the world's
attention. We believe these reports have played an instrumental role in
preventing the further deterioration of tensions with the police.
Furthermore, social media platforms played a crucial role in
organizing rescue and treatment of injured people, which ranged from
those having asthma attacks to those suffering lethal wounds. The
successful use of social media has in that sense has even proven to
save lives.
To sum up, in face of the current political power, social media
platforms have turned into a conduit through which the citizens could
make their voices heard, and through which they could demonstrate to
the world the injustices they have been subject to. The prominence of
social media in the protests has been akin to their use in the Arab
Spring and the Occupy protests. We don't want to imagine the possible
consequences of the violence that could be asserted by those currently
in power in the absence of the Internet and the mediation of social
media platforms.
We are concerned!
The discomfort government representatives are experiencing with social
media are evident in their communication with the press. In their
public statements, these powerful figures are also signalling that they
are intent on increasing censorship on public information outlets and
in applying further controls to social media and the Internet.
On the ground, dozens of people have been taken into custody for their
use of Twitter during the protests. The lawyers that had access to the
files of these people stated that the imputed accusations are not
supported by substantial evidence. Regardless of the dodgy basis of
the accusations, it is evident that the government is repurposing
Internet and mobile technologies to monitor communications and
illegally collect personal information. State surveillance on the
Internet and the resulting oppression of citizens that express their
views and support towards the protests through the social media is not
acceptable.
We are concerned that in the coming months the AKP government will
become more strict when it comes to enforcing existing repressive laws
that apply to information, press and the internet. Government
spokespersons have also signalled that, when needed, they are ready to
introduce new laws in this respect. We are specifically concerned that
the government will enhance existing practices of surveillance, e.g.,
DPI, filtering, and related disciplinary measures. If their
statements materialize, be it through legal or disciplinary measures,
the effects are likely to reflect negatively upon fundamental rights
and freedoms – as well as on the role of Internet intermediaries
towards governments vs. citizens.
We call upon the government and other political powers to take a
peaceful and conscientious stand towards the protests as well as the
use of social media, and to act in a manner that will calm down
citizens.
We declare that we will use every democratic right we have and take
all possible legal steps to counter attempts to illegitimately limit
and take away the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens in a
democratic society.
We also call upon all citizens to claim their fundamental right to
access the Internet and related services. We invite all citizens to
use these conduits more effectively and accurately.
#ResistSocialMedia
The Power of Social Media - The Helplessness of Traditional Media and
#direngeziparki #direnankara, #direnizmir: An analysis of the
Alternative Informatics Association
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/An_analysis_of_Gezi_Parki
Resist Social Media (11.06.2013)
http://www.alternatifbilisim.org/wiki/Resist_Social_Media
EDRi-gram: Turkish demonstrations using social media despite censorship
(5.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/turkish-demonstration-social-media-blocking
(Contribution by EDRi member Alternative Informatics Association - Turkey)
9. Recommended Action
Subscribe to the monthly digital rights newsletter for Latin America and
Caribbean
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/category/english/
Issue 0
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/tag/n0-062013/
Respect my privacy
http://www.respect-my-privacy.eu
Sign the Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and
telecommunications surveillance
http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/
10. Recommended Reading
The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus endorses EFF's objection
against DRM in HTML5 (17.06.2013)
http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf
European Commission Sector Guides on Implementing the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights (17.06.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/human-rights/
Yes We Scan! Privacy Activists Protest Against PRISM and NSA
Surveillance As President Obama Arrives in Berlin (18.06.2013)
https://netzpolitik.org/2013/yes-we-scan-privacy-activists-protest-against-prism-and-nsa-surveillance-as-president-obama-arrives-in-berlin/
11. Agenda
20-21 June 2013, Lisbon, Portugal
EuroDIG 2013
http://www.eurodig.org/
25-26 June 2013, Barcelona, Spain
9th International Conference on Internet Law & Politics: Big Data:
Challenges and Opportunities.
http://edcp.uoc.edu/symposia/idp2013/?lang=en
25-26 June 2013, Washington, DC, USA
23rd Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference (CFP)
http://www.cfp.org/2013
26-27 June 2013, Paris, France
Global Forum on Responsible Business Conduct
Responsible Business Conduct in the ICT Sector
http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/globalforumonresponsiblebusinessconduct/
9 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
JURI workshop on legal aspects of free and open source software
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/juri/events.html?id=workshops#menuzone
5-7 July 2013, Cologne, Germany
SIGINT is an annual three-day conference on technical and social aspects
of our digital society
http://sigint.ccc.de/
31 July – 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
https://ohm2013.org/
14-15 September 2013, Vienna, Austria
Daten, Netz & Politik 2013 - DNP13
https://dnp13.unwatched.org/
17-18 September 2013, Geneva, Switzerland
2013 Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon)
http://okcon.org/call-for-proposals/
23-26 September 2013, Warsaw, Poland
Public Voice Conference 2013
35th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners conference
http://www.giodo.gov.pl/259/id_art/762/j/en/
24-25 September 2013, Brussels, Belgium
EU hackaton - hack4yourrights
This year’s theme is privacy
http://2013.euhackathon.eu/
27-30 September 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Freedom not Fear 2013
http://www.freedomnotfear.org/
http://www.freedom-not-fear.eu
22-25 October 2013, Bali, Indonesia
Internet Governance Forum 2013
http://igf2013.or.id/
25-27 October 2013, Siegen, Germany
Cyberpeace - FIfF Annual Meeting 2013
http://www.fiff.de/
22-24 January 2014, Brussels, Belgium
CPDP 2014: Reforming data protection: The Global Perspective
http://www.cpdpconferences.org/
12. About
EDRi-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRi has 35 members based or with offices in 21 different
countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge
and awareness through the EDRi-gram.
All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.
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
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: [email protected]
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: [email protected]
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 if you have any problems with subscribing
or unsubscribing.
