European Parliament: Parliament backs EU directive on use of Passenger Name Records (PNR) »
Archive | April, 2016
Next step in EU court case on Data Retention will be July 19
By HAX on April 13, 2016 in Big Brother, Data Retention, ECJ, EU, Human rights, surveillance, Sweden, UK
Very little has been known or reported from yesterday’s hearing on data retention in the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
The hearing was conducted as a part of British and Swedish cases – arguing that data retention in the respective countries should end, as a consequence of the ECJ ruling in 2014 overthrowing the EU Data Retention Directive.
As data retention is found to be in breach of human rights on an EU level, the same should apply on a national level – the argument goes.
I will try to find out more about yesterday’s hearing. And if you find any links, please post them in the comments to this blog post.
The next step in this affair is said to be the Advocate Generals recommendation to the court – to be delivered July 19. (Normally the ECJ will follow this recommendation. But the process is slow, taking several months more.)
/ HAX
GCHQ and Big Entertainment
By HAX on April 12, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Entertainment, Copyright, File Sharing, GCHQ, Intellectual Property, UK
It was a little-noticed story in the Entertainment and Oddities section: The GCHQ is using its spying network to help the copyright industry prevent “unauthorized distribution of creative works” – meaning ordinary people sharing interesting things with each other. Yes, that spying network which was supposed to prevent horrible terror attacks, and only to prevent horrible terror attacks, to safeguard our very lives as a last line of defense, is now in the service of the copyright industry.
Rick Falkvinge: So GCHQ is already spying on behalf of the copyright industry. Why isn’t there an outcry over this change of mission? »
European court to consider legality of UK surveillance laws
“Blanket retention of communications data, without suspicion, creates a honeypot of information for criminals and hackers, and this case will have implications for personal privacy and the security of individual personal data.”
The Guardian: European court to consider legality of UK surveillance laws »
Update, also see:
The Guardian: MP calls for limit on UK surveillance powers as EU test case opens »
Can Ethereum Restore Online Freedom & Transform the Internet?
Via Reason.tv | Youtube »
U.S. ISPs Refuse to Disconnect Persistent Pirates
The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn’t lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints.
TorrentFreak: U.S. ISPs Refuse to Disconnect Persistent Pirates »
Fierce legal battle over data retention in Sweden
There is a rather interesting legal battle concerning data retention going on in Sweden. Parties are the ISP Bahnhof and the government oversight authority Post- & Telestyrelsen (PTS).
Two years ago, to the day, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the EU data retention directive — stating that it is in violation of human rights, especially the right to privacy.
However, in Sweden data retention continues — under a cross-party political consensus. This is to be tried in the ECJ, but is still an open issue.
Meanwhile, Swedish police (and other authorities) are using data retention to demand information about Internet users and their activities from the ISPs.
Referring to the ECJ verdict, the ISP Bahnhof, has refused to share information about minor crimes with the police. After all, data retention was supposed to be about terrorism and other serious criminal activities.
To share information from data retention, Bahnhof requires that the police confirm that it will only be used for investigating serious crimes according to relevant Swedish legal definitions. And Bahnhof demands this information from the police in writing.
The police is not happy about this. Not at all. So it has asked PTS to investigate what can be done. This leading to PTS slamming Bahnhof with a penalty of five million Swedish kronor (some 550.000 euros) if not compliant.
Now, we shall remember that there still is an open case about Swedish data retention in the ECJ. Also, a Swedish administrative court has asked the ECJ for guidance when it comes to the Bahnhof case.
This has lead Bahnhof to ask the Stockholm lower administrative court (Förvaltningsrätten) for inhibition of the PTS decision concerning the fines mentioned above.
Now, this court has granted Bahnhof inhibition — until it has reached a final verdict after careful investigation in the wider context of data retention. However, PTS still can appeal against the inhibition. If so, the case will move up the three-tier Swedish administrative court system.
The bottom line is that a relatively small ISP — backed up by the first ECJ ruling — is prepared to take a fight against the government on data retention. And that the Swedish government is trying to circumvent the ECJ verdict, to maintain mass surveillance.
This is a story to be continued.
/ HAX
Disclaimer: The 5:th of July-foundation, running this blog, is the VPN provider for Bahnhof (and others). Bahnhofs lawyer is also a member of the board of the 5:th of July foundation.
European Parliament to approve PNR next Thursday
By HAX on April 7, 2016 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, PNR, Privacy, surveillance, War on Terror
The European Parliament will have what is believed to be its’ final vote on EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) in Strasbourg next Thursday, April 14.
For years, the Parliament has tried to stop registration of sensitive personal information related to air travel. But after the latest terrorist attacks, pressure has mounted, and everything suggests that the dossier will be approved during next week’s session.
From the European Parliaments webpage:
Passenger Name Record (PNR) data is information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers during reservation and check-in procedures. Non-carrier economic operators, such as travel agencies and tour operators, sell package tours making use of charter flights for which they also collect and process PNR data from their customers.
PNR data include several different types of information, such as travel dates, travel itinerary, ticket information, contact details, baggage information and payment information.
Parliamentarians have had serious concerns about the impact of PNR on fundamental rights and data protection.
Now he PNR dossier is said to be voted together with the EU Data Protection package – at least allowing some coordinated approach.
Formally, EU PNR is about information regarding passengers arriving on flights from non-EU countries. But there is no doubt this will also apply to intra-EU flights.
So, governments will store information about all of people’s air travel, in detail. This is to be added to information about e.g. all of our telecommunications and our bank transactions. The grip tightens.
(It could have been even worse. Earlier on in the process, the U.K. put forward the idea that all our train travel, car rentals, and hotel stays should also be registered. But I guess they decided to take this one step at a time.)
If nothing short of a miracle occurs, next Thursday the EU will take its’ next step towards Big Brotherism.
/ HAX
Links:
• EP: Final votes on PNR and data protection package »
• News on PNR from the EP (16 July 2015) »
• EP: Much Ado About PNR (19 Jan. 2015 »
• EP: EU Passenger Name Record (PNR) proposal: an overview (14 Dec. 2015) »
• MEPs refuse to vote on PNR before Council strengthens data protection (9 March 2016) »
Obama’s gift to Trump
Obama has warned of the imminent perils of a Trump presidency, but on the key issue of freedom of the press, which is intimately tied to the ability of officials to talk to journalists, his own administration has established a dangerous precedent for Trump — or any future occupant of the Oval Office — to use one of the most punitive laws of the land against some of the most courageous and necessary people we have. One section of the Espionage Act even allows for the death penalty.
The Intercept: Obama’s gift to Trump: a policy of cracking down on journalists and their sources »
ECJ to rule in favour of linking?
Linking to pirated content that is already available to the public can not be seen as copyright infringement under the European Copyright Directive. This is the advice Advocate General Melchior Wathelet has sent to the EU Court of Justice, in what may turn out to be a landmark case.
TorrentFreak: Linking to Pirated Content Is Not Copyright Infringement, Says EU Court Adviser »