*Got some lively 4th of July reading there, boyo.
======================================================================
EDRi-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 11.14, 3 July 2013
Contents
1. The Washington Statement – In support of data protection
2. Prism, Tempora... and ECtHR?
3. Could web browsing infringe copyright?
4. ECJ Advocate General: Google shouldn't be forced to block results
5. Future of Copyright Contest 2013
6. European Court of Justice data retention cases to be heard on 9 July
7. ENDitorial: EDRi letter on Licences for Europe
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About
1. The Washington Statement – In support of data protection
Privacy advocates from North America and Europe met last week in
Washington, DC to participate in the Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP)
conference 2013 and to discuss transatlantic cooperation on privacy and
data protection issues. The debates focused on the NSA leaks, the
European data protection reform and the upcoming negotiations on the
EU-US free trade agreement (TAFTA/TTIP).
In light of recent revelations about the collection of personal data
from Internet companies by the US government and other dragnet
surveillance techniques that impact the rights of Internet users, the
North American and European privacy advocates issued the “Washington
Statement” in support of the data protection reform in the European Union.
The Statement was jointly drafted by the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), Bits of Freedom (BoF), the British Columbia Civil Liberties
Association (BCCLA), the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the
Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), the Electronic Privacy Information
Center (EPIC), Friends of Privacy USA, Privacy International and many
others. It is now open for individual endorsements at
http://washingtonstatement.org.
This coalition of civil society and consumer groups issued the following
consensus statement:
Privacy is a basic human right set out in Articles 17 and 19 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article
12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
We, the undersigned civil society groups from North America and Europe,
are outraged because:
• Under PRISM and related surveillance programs, the US government is
collecting personal data that individuals have given to companies such
as Google or Facebook. These data were given freely or inadvertently,
trusting that they would only be used for stated commercial purposes and
not secretly shared with governments in order to monitor innocent people
worldwide;
• At the same time, the US companies and the US administration are
lobbying in Europe against European data protection law at a time when
the world needs strong privacy protections most;
• EU citizens currently have significant privacy rights that US citizens
do not have – thereby creating a level of trust in the public and
private sectors in the European Union that is not available to US citizens.
Currently, the European Union is reforming its general data protection
framework for the private sector. We therefore call on EU policy makers:
• to oppose corporate lobbying and to prevent the erosion of privacy
protections in the European Union;
• to set a high standard and ensure that EU data protection law sets a
global standard for privacy;
• to ensure specific rights of individuals are being preserved, such as
explicit consent to personal data processing, the right to access,
rectification and certain rights to erasure that are in the existing
European legal framework;
• to ensure basic principles that would help protect citizens against
untargeted and disproportionate surveillance measures, such as data
minimization, purpose limitation, limited storage periods and
notification procedures;
• to ensure that personal data processed in the EU is not transferred to
third country authorities without a determination that there are
adequate privacy safeguards.
We further call on US policy makers:
• to repeal provisions of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act
that permit unlawful surveillance of users of Internet services;
• to enact the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” into law;
• to cease the US opposition to EU efforts to strengthen data protection;
• to support ratification of Council of Europe Convention 108.
Our common future, on both sides of the Atlantic, needs privacy and a
strong European law. We call on European policy makers to defend this
human right now, as an essential prerequisite for preserving privacy,
freedom of thought and of expression in vibrant democracies.
The Statement can be endorsed at
http://washingtonstatement.org
Computers, Freedom & Privacy Conference 2013
http://www.cfp.org/2013/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler - EDRi)
2. Prism, Tempora... and ECtHR?
By revealing documents about Prism US surveillance programme, Snowden,
the former American National Security Agency (NSA) employee, seems to
have opened a Pandora box. Der Spiegel has brought out new revelations
that EU offices in Brussels, New York and Washington were bugged by NSA
under the same Prism programme.
According to Der Spiegel, a series of bogus phone calls to the Justus
Lipsius building, hosting the EU Council, were traced back to NATO
headquarters in Brussels where NSA agents are based, indicating an
attack on the EU communications security.
These revelations have put the trade agreements between the EU and the
USA under serious threats. "We cannot negotiate on a giant transatlantic
market when there is even the slightest suspicion that our partners are
spying the offices of the negotiators," stated EU justice commissioner
Viviane Reding.
“The Prism revelations have made European parliamentarians more
receptive to stronger measures,” told Joe McNamee from EDRi to New York
Times. “But the reaction has not been as strong as we had hoped for.”
Moreover, the British intelligence service, GCHQ seems to have also been
running a similar, even bigger surveillance programme called Tempora,
in operation for the last 18 months, which taps into transatlantic
fibre-optic cables used for telephone and Internet services. The agency
processes large amounts of sensitive personal information which it is
sharing with NSA.
"It's not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,. They
(GCHQ) are worse than the US," stated Snowden for the Guardian.
The Guardian says that GCHQ handles 600 million “telephone events” each
day, having tapped into more than 200 fibre-optic cables.
Unfortunately, neither programmes respect data protection safeguards.
The US FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Amendment Act
explicitly allows the US authorities to spy on the anyone’s Internet
activities and communications even outside the country, to monitor
political and commercial activities even if these are just vaguely "of
interest" to the government. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
(RIPA) allows the UK government to do the same whenever a
"communication" is initiated or ends in the UK.
Douwe Korff explains in The Guardian that GCHQ is clearly in breach the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under which the UK has a duty
to prevent agencies such as NSA from spying on the data and
communications of British and other individuals. Even more, GCHQ is
facilitating NSA access to these data.
In the US, the national branch of Amnesty International took the spying
issue to the domestic courts which dismissed the case considering the
allegations were "too speculative". Now, in the light of the new
revelations, Amnesty and others civil rights groups should urgently
consider taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
directly.
EU-US relations at risk after new bugging scandal (1.07.2013)
http://euobserver.com/foreign/120689
EDRi-gram: US agencies have unlimited access to Internet data (19.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.12/prism-case-us-agencies-access-internet-data
EDRi-gram: EDRi letter to the US Embassy on PRISM (19.06.2013)
http://edri.org/edrigram/number11.12/edri-letter-on-prism
UK spy scheme said to be larger than Prism (24.06.2013)
http://euobserver.com/justice/120612
We can use European law to challenge this spying (23.06.2013)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/23/european-law-challenge-surveillance-human-rights
Attacks from America: NSA Spied on European Union Offices (29.06.2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union-offices-a-908590.html
E.U. Reaction to Data Sharing Revelations Grew Slowly (30.06.2013)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/technology/eu-reaction-to-data-sharing-revelations-grew-slowly.html?_r=1&
3. Could web browsing infringe copyright?
Do you violate copyright law by using an Internet browser? This is, in
short, the question that the UK Supreme Court is asking the Court of
Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in a preliminary ruling. The case
considered by the UK Supreme Court (Public Relations Consultants
Association v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors) questions
whether or not the mere act of viewing copyright material on a website
via an Internet browser constitutes a breach of copyright.
It is yet another copyright case at the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU), in which rightsholders are trying to restrict the
application of the copyright exceptions and limitations recognised in
the 2001 Copyright Directive.
The Public Relations Consultant Association Ltd ("the Association")
provides a monitoring service to its clients by using services of
Meltwater group, whose software automatically identifies relevant news
content. The case involves an appeal against a decision that clients of
the Association needed a licence to view the media monitoring service.
Meltwater holds a licence to access the plaintiff's (The Newspaper
Licensing Agency Ltd) material. The issue at stake here is whether the
clients were in breach of copyright when they accessed the copyrighted
material via a web-browser. In order to view any web content, a "cache"
copy of the document is automatically created and the plaintiffs argue
that this “unauthorised” copy could breach copyright.
According to the Supreme Court, web-browsing creates temporary copies
that are covered by the exception established in Article 5.1 of
Directive 2001/29/EC and do not constitute an infringement of copyright.
"Cache" copies are stored automatically by browsing and also
automatically deleted after a certain lapse of time coupled with the
browser use and are not dependent on human intervention. The Supreme
Court considers that the exception applies to copies made for the sole
purpose of allowing lawful uses and this includes browsing the web. The
Court rightly notes that it would be an unacceptable result to consider
millions of ordinary Internet users to be copyright infringers by dint
of merely accessing a web-page containing copyright material.
The Court, however, decided to refer the case to the ECJ because of the
transnational dimension of the question that could impact Internet users
across the EU.
Behind this case is the question whether or not people should pay a
licence to access copyrighted material that is legally available online.
Recently, as in the discussions of the “stakeholder dialogue” Licences
for Europe, there is a tendency to try to solve profound problems
created by the lack of harmonisation of copyright exceptions and
limitations by simply licensing special uses even though these uses may
be exempted. In the up-coming case, the broader question is how could
you justify demanding a licence for what is simply a temporary
reproduction which is transient or incidental and is essential to enable
browsing of legal content on the web?
UK Supreme Court Decision to refer to the CJEU (17.04.2013)
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0202_Judgment.pdf
(Contribution by Marie Humeau - EDRi)
4. ECJ Advocate General: Google shouldn't be forced to block results
In a case opposing the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) and Google
Spain, Niilo Jaaskinen, the Advocate General of the European Court of
Justice (ECJ ), issued on 25 June 2013 his opinion that, on the basis of
the Data Protection Directive, search engine service providers are, in
principle, not responsible of personal data appearing on web pages they
process.
AEPD requested Google Spain to remove results regarding an auction
notice for a repossessed home, based on a complaint from a person who
had claimed that the search results were infringing on his right to
privacy and who had asked for the removal of the results. Google Inc.
and Google Spain have refused to comply with the AEPD’s order and have
brought two appeals before the Audiencia Nacional (the Spanish National
High Court) to ask for the annulment of AEPD’s decision. The Spanish
Court referred the case to ECJ.
“Google is not generally to be considered as a 'controller' of the
personal data appearing on web pages it processes , who, according to
the Directive, would be responsible for compliance with data protection
rules. In effect, provision of an information location tool does not
imply any control over the content included on third party web pages.
It does not even enable the internet search engine provider to
distinguish between personal data in the sense of the Directive, which
relates to an identifiable living natural person, and other data. In his
opinion, the internet search engine provider cannot in law or in fact
fulfil the obligations of the controller provided in the Directive in
relation to personal data on source web pages hosted on third party
servers,” said Niilo Jaaskinen in his opinion who therefore concluded:
“Requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and
legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an
interference with the freedom of expression of the publisher of the web
page.”
Google officials said Jaaskinen’s statement supported their “long-held
view that requiring search engines to suppress ‘legitimate and legal
information’ would amount to censorship.”
Index CEO Kirsty Hughes shared this opinion: "It would threaten freedom
of expression and information if search engines were required to censor
legitimate information that is already in the public domain. The
responsibility for content should lie with the original publisher and
not an intermediary”.
Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE – Advocate
General’s Opinion (25.06.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-06/cp130077en.pdf
Opinion of Advocate General Jaaskinen - Case C131/12 - Google Spain SL
Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) Mario
Costeja González (25.06.2013)
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12
Judging freedom of expression at Europe’s highest court (26.02.2013)
http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.be/2013/02/judging-freedom-of-expression-at.html
Spain’s Google privacy case “an interference with the freedom of
expression” (25.06.2013)
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/06/jaaskinen-search-engines-not-required-to-block-access-to-legitimate-information/
5. Future of Copyright Contest 2013
This year, the EDRi member Modern Poland Foundation is again asking
people all over the world about their vision of the future of copyright.
There are now 4 days to go before the end of the crowd founding campaign
and there are 4 weeks left before the deadline to submit the work for
the Future of Copyright Contest.
We all feel that it is something wrong with the copyright law and that
it doesn't fit to global digital era. There are several competing
visions of good intellectual monopoly law and we want to encourage
people to dream about the future of copyright they really want for
themselves. So what should this future look like? Or what will happen if
we won’t change current trends? Maria Swietlik, coordinator of the
Contest asks calls on everyone to write, make a movie, sing or animate
in order to share their vision.
To take part in this competition one must publish new work on the
web until 1 August 2013. The prize is founded by the public so everyone
can contribute via Indiegogo website.
Every work will be evaluated by an exceptional jury: Beatriz Busaniche
(Via Libre Foundation), Shun-Ling Chen (copyright scholar), Mike
Linksvayer (Creative Commons), Jérémie Zimmermann (La Quadrature du
Net), Joe McNamee (Executive Director of EDRi) and Jaroslaw Lipszyc, the
president of Modern Poland Foundation, the contest organizer.
This is the second edition of this Contest. Last year, the Foundation
has raised more than 1 000 USD and several original vision of (a rather
dark) future of copyright. “Once upon a time in the wonderful Folklore
Valley, a creator wonders about the future of her memetic folktale
legacy and decides to take some distance from the anonymous creative
practices of her community. The creator is warned by a giant caption. It
reads: “Not Wanted”. Despite the warning, the creator leaves her
community and starts to sign her work as a mean to legitimise her
individual contribution to the folktale scene. On her way to authorship,
she encounters the Lawyer and the Publisher…” the story starts. If you
are interested what happened next or want to read about the future when
you can’t paint even if your therapist recommends you to do it, you
should read last year's Future of Copyright Contest best works.
Future of Copyright Contest 2012
http://prawokultury.pl/en/publications/future-copyright-2012/
Support the project or more details on submitting the work
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/future-of-copyright-contest-2-0
Facebook page of the event
https://www.facebook.com/events/579658032055728
You can also ask organizers more details at contest at
nowoczesnapolska.org.pl.
(Thanks to EDRi member Modern Poland Foundation)
6. European Court of Justice data retention cases to be heard on 9 July
On 9 July 2013, the European Court of Justice will have a hearing before
the Grand Chamber with two joined cases on the validity of the data
retention directive (2006/24/EC).
The two cases were brought by the Irish High Court (C-293/12 Digital
Rights Ireland) and by the Austrian Constitutional Court (C-594/12
Seitlinger and Others) and refer to the compatibility of the data
retention directive with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The ECJ has advised the parties that the hearing will focus on Articles
7 and 8 of the Charter. The judges will explore the purpose and benefits
of data retention.
The parties involved have received a series of questions from the Court
to be answered at the hearing. Here they are:
"Section II
1 The parties are invited to comment at the hearing as to whether
the area covered by the Directive 2006/24 data retention can serve the
purpose of detection and prosecution of serious crime. You will be asked
in this context to an explanation of the impact it has that many options
for anonymous use of electronic communications services exist.
2 The parties will be asked to explain at the hearing as to whether
and to what extent it is possible, using the information to create
personal profiles and use, from which - independent of the question of
the legality of such a process - the social and professional environment
a person, their habits and activities are described.
3 As is - especially considering the answer to the question II.2 -
the interference with the guaranteed under Articles 7 and 8 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights to assess individuals whose data was stored?
4 The parties will be asked in light of the case law of the Court
that the European Union legislature is obliged to base its choice on
objective criteria to answer the following questions at the hearing:
a. In a What objective criteria the EU legislature based its decision
in adopting Directive 2006/24?
b. On what data the legislature was to assess the usefulness of data
retention for the detection and prosecution of serious crime?
c. Due to data which the legislature could assume that storage of
the data over a period of at least six months is required?
d. Are there any statistics which suggest that the detection and
prosecution of serious crime since the adoption of the Directive has
improved 2006/24?
5 If a protected by the legal order of the EU fundamental rights and
protected by the legal system in general interest objective against each
other, is the proportionality requires a restriction of the fundamental
right in accordance with the case law of the Court that the requirements
for the protection of the law with the relevant target be reconciled.
The necessary proper balance must be made before the adoption of the
measure in question. Moreover, the exceptions and restrictions must be
limited to the protection of personal data to the absolute minimum.
- Taking account of this case law, the parties are asked to answer the
following questions at the hearing:
a Has the European Union legislature made before the adoption of
Directive 2006/24, a proper balance between the requirements of the
protection of fundamental rights and the standing at issue in the
present case, the public interest? He has in this context the importance
of guaranteed under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of fundamental rights and the fact that numerous opportunities
for anonymous use of electronic communications services are taken into
account?
b. Can be assumed, given the importance of the fundamental rights
concerned that the security measures adopted by the data retained in the
legislature, necessary and sufficiently precise to prevent any possible
abuse? Is it possible in the face of such arrangements that the provider
of electronic communications services as defined in Directive 2006/24,
the required data storage to other outsourcing service providers in
other Member States or in third countries, particularly because of the
cost of that storage? What impact does such outsourcing of data storage
on the security of data?
c. Can - especially considering the answer to the question to 11.5.3
- be assumed that the legislature has limited the interference with the
fundamental rights concerned to the absolute minimum?"
The lawyers of all parties, as well as the Austrian Data Protection
Commission will be given 15 minutes speaking time at the
hearing. Following the comments of several EU Member States,
representatives of the EU Commission and the Council of Ministers, Peter
Hustinx, the EU commissioner for data protection, will have the last word.
A final judgement in this case can be expected next year from ECJ.
Data retention: European Court hearing on 9 July - provides
"revolutionary issues" (only in German, 26.06.2013)
https://netzpolitik.org/2013/vorratsdatenspeicherung-europaischer-gerichtshof-verhandelt-am-9-juli-und-stellt-revolutionare-fragen/
“As large a charter as the wind”?* ECJ to hold hearing in data retention
cases, focusing on Charter of Fundamental Rights (15.06.2013)
http://www.contentandcarrier.eu/?p=435
They want to know everything (only in German, 26.06.2013)
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/europaeischer-gerichtshof-zu-datenspeicherung-die-alles-wissen-wollen-1.1705971
EDRi-gram: EC goes after governments for not implementing data retention
(5.06.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.11/ec-fines-sweden-data-retention
Data Retention in Austria: Constitutional Court turns to the CJEU
(16.01.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.1/data-retention-austria
7. ENDitorial: EDRi letter on Licences for Europe
EDRi send today, 3 July 2013, the following letter to Commissioners
Kroes, Vassiliou and Barnier regarding the Working Group 1 of "Licences
for Europe" initiative:
We are very pleased to see that our constructive participation in the
Working Group has been noticed and appreciated. However, we deeply
regret that the concerns expressed during the discussions are not
reflected in the minutes of the meetings, which appears to be a common
theme across the whole project.
We are grateful that you recognised the importance of the users' point
of view but, in the absence of commercial users in the meetings and so
few representatives of civil society, it is very difficult to have a
balanced discussion that will give due consideration of all perspectives
of the problems encountered with regard to cross-border access and
service portability in the European Union. While you refer in your
letter to a win-win situation for all stakeholders, it is very hard to
understand how such a situation can be achieved in Working Group 1, when
not all interests are represented during the meetings. Stakeholder
dialogues may be useful if all stakeholders are represented, but
unfortunately it is far from being the case here.
In your letter, you plead in favour of a market-led solution that can
improve the situation for users and this does indeed sound like an
appealing solution. However, most of the presentations have simply
elaborated on current practices and did not consider the issue to be
discussed: how to facilitate better cross-border services for citizens.
We can probably agree that if current practices were the solution, this
stakeholder dialogue would not be happening.
European citizens are still facing a weak and poorly serviced market. A
market-led solution improving the situation for users is only possible
if the legal framework enables service providers to offer proper EU-wide
services. Unfortunately, in this context we face problems that have
their roots in the EU legal framework. The overarching problem is the
territoriality of national copyright laws. Therefore, we strongly
believe that the current legal framework should be discussed in this
stakeholder dialogue. We are pleased to hear that the European
Commission is working on a review of the legal framework and we are not
arguing that "Licences for Europe" should be the instance deciding on a
reform or not, but we do believe that the current legal framework and
the barriers it creates to the realisation of a digital single market
should be part of the discussion.
In our opinion, the European Commission made fundamental mistakes when
launching this initiative. In particular, it started the search for a
solution to certain problems without defining what the problems actually
were and then created the four working groups to solve, it appears, four
sets of undefined problems. The methodology of the Commission of being
“in” this process (launching it, chairing the sessions, preparing
minutes, etc), but “outside” the process (and therefore unable to
facilitate the creation of clear problem definitions from the outset) is
simply not credible and cannot produce credible results.
EDRi strongly believes that the lack of access for EU citizens to more
and, more importantly, better legal offers cross-border is a horizontal
problem. The division into sub-groups was decided during the first
meeting and supported by some members. In the absence of a problem
definition, the only thing that was clearly defined is what could not be
discussed – the legal framework.
As you have noticed, the representation of civil society and users is a
very small minority of the participants, making it difficult to make our
concerns heard – this situation being exacerbated by the multiplication
of working groups. In reality, the root problem is the same for all
sectors: the lack of availability of cross-border access and service
portability caused by the application of the current legal framework
which should have been the starting point of the discussion. The
sub-division would have been justified if reasons had been identified
that called for such an approach.
You kindly offer to facilitate our participation to the stakeholder
dialogue and to provide financial assistance, for which we thank you.
However, we will have to decline this offer as in our view the problem
of this dialogue in the discussion is much deeper than only budgetary
constraints.
We would be really pleased to meet and discuss further on a potential
reform of the EU copyright legislation with the relevant
Directorates-General. Nevertheless, due to the lack of productive
discussions in Working Group 1, we regret to inform you that we see no
other option than to leave Working Group 1 of Licences for Europe. We
hope that you will understand our decision and that you will still be
open to discussion with us in the future.
European Commission Answer to EDRi and EBLIDA letter of 3.04.2013
(23.05.2013)
http://edri.org/files/EC_Answer_L4EWG1.pdf
EDRi-gram: Licences for Europe: Request to broaden the discussions
(10.04.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.7/licences-for-europe-broaden-discussion
ENDitorial: Licences for Europe and fight club... only one rule (13.02.2013)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number11.3/licences-for-europe-fight-club
EDRi letter from 3 July 2013
http://edri.org/files/L4E_WG1_letter_EDRi_July2013.pdf
8. Recommended Action
Support the game "Data Dealer - Legal? Illegal? Whatever." at Kickstarter
http://kck.st/10hzUvJ
9. Recommended Reading
ECtHR case: Youth Initiative for Human Rights vs. Serbia (25.06.2013)
http://bit.ly/14uqKJF
Digital Agenda: New specific rules for consumers when telecoms personal
data is lost or stolen in EU (24.06.2013)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-591_en.htm
Facebook issues data breach notification - may have leaked your email
and phone number (23.06.2013)
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/06/23/facebook-issues-data-breach-notification-may-have-leaked-your-email-and-phone-number/
Bulgaria: Statewatch Analysis: The use and misuse of telephone taps and
communications data by Bulgarian intelligence (pdf) by Alexander
Kashumov (Access to Information Program, AIP)
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-225-bulgaria-tel-tap.pdf
FSFE compliance workshop discovers GPL violation by FANTEC, Welte wins
in court (26.06.2013)
http://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130626-01.en.html
Letter to Google executives on Google Glasses project (18.06.2013)
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/other-document/files/2013/20130618_letter_to_google_glass_en.pdf
http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2013/nr-c_130618_e.asp
10. Agenda
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/
6-11 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
14th Libre Software Meeting
http://2013.rmll.info/en/
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
9 July 2013, Brussels, Belgium
Earth Connections and Small Networks: A Greens/EFA workshop in the
European Parliament
http://www.greens-efa.eu/earth-connections-and-small-networks-10200.html
31 July – 4 August 2013, Geestmerambacht, Netherlands
Observe. Hack. Make. - OHM2013
https://ohm2013.org/
7 September 2013, Berlin, Germany
Demonstration "Freiheit statt Angst" / rally against surveillance
http://blog.freiheitstattangst.de/
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/
18-20 September 2013, Berlin, Germany
8th International Conference of Information Commissioners (ICIC
2013)
http://www.info-commissioners.org/index.php/blank-menu/281-8th-international-conference-of-information-commissioners-icic-2013-germany
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/
24-25 April 2014, Barcelona, Spain
SSN 2014: Surveillance Ambiguities & Assymetries
http://www.surveillance-studies.net/documents/cfp_SSN2014_Barcelona_final.pdf
11. About
EDRi-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRi has 35 members based or with offices in 21 different
countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in
developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge
and awareness through the EDRi-gram.
All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.
This EDRi-gram has been published with financial support from the EU's
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea
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.
