Navigation

Archive | EU

The EU goes full Orwell

By on June 3, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, EU, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Media

Earlier this week we learned that the EU has initiated a cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to swiftly remove internet content that we are not supposed to see. Link»

And now the EU Commission would like to regulate what can be shown on tv, on-demand-services such as Netflix and possibly even Youtube.

The new suggested rule is that at least 20 percent of all on-demand content and 50 percent of all television content must be produced in Europe.

This is suggested in the revision of the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). Link»

In other words, in one weeks time, the EU has launched a new level of Internet censorship – and suggested new guidelines for what kind of audiovisual content the people ought to consume.

This is bad, in so many ways.

First of all, who are politicians and eurocrats to tell us what audiovisual content we are supposed to watch?

Second, it is totally absurd that the country of origin of a tv-production should decide if it is to be shown or not, rather than its subject, quality, and public demand.

Third, this is ill-conceived cultural protectionism.

Fourth, when the ruling political class tries to control what audiovisual content we can or cannot, should or should not see – society is swiftly moving in a totalitarian direction.

These suggested EU rules must be stopped.

/ HAX

1

The beginning of an new era of Internet censorship?

By on May 31, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Facebook, Google, Internet

Internet and social media giants Facebook, Twitter, Google’s YouTube and Microsoft on Tuesday pledged to combat online hate speech in Europe as the European Union’s European Commission unveiled a new code of conduct in Brussels designed to avoid the “spread of illegal hate speech.”

The companies vowed to review most valid requests for removal of illegal hate speech within 24 hours and to remove or disable access if necessary.

To be observed. Closely.

THR: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Vow to Combat Online Hate Speech in Europe »

0

Should the US Patriot Act have precedence over EU data protection?

By on May 26, 2016 in Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

Today the European Parliament has voted on a resolution concerning the “EU-US Privacy Shield”. This is a mess.

Transfer of personal data from the EU to the US used to be regulated under the so-called Safe Harbour Agreement, aiming at protecting our data when transferred to the US. But actually, this agreement was too vague, rather pointless and possible to circumvent. Finally, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated it, finding that it violated citizens right to privacy.

So work started to replace Safe Harbour with the EU-US Privacy Shield. In the process, the EU has stated that there is a new agreement, even though we are nowhere close to a final document. The EU and the US are very eager to push for this new agreement, to benefit Big Data in the US. But the concern is that this new agreement will not treat EU citizens personal data in a responsible way, disregard our right to privacy and that it might be Safe Harbour all over again.

One core question is if the US Patriot Act and the new USA Freedom Act should have precedence over EU data protection.

Today the European Parliament had a say, in a non-binding resolution. The press release:

In the resolution, passed by 501 votes to 119 with 31 abstentions, MEPs welcome the efforts of the Commission and the US administration to achieve “substantial improvements” in the Privacy Shield compared to the Safe Harbour decision which it is to replace.

However, they also voice concern about “deficiencies” in the proposed new arrangement negotiated by the Commission, notably:

• the US authorities’ access to data transferred under the Privacy Shield,

• the possibility of collecting bulk data, in some cases, which does not meet the criteria of “necessity” and “proportionality” laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,

• the proposed US ombudsperson, a new institution that MEPs accept is a step forward, but believe to be neither “sufficiently independent”, nor “vested with adequate powers to effectively exercise and enforce its duty”, and

• the complexity of the redress mechanism, which the Commission and US administration need to make more “user-friendly and effective”, MEPs say.

Parliament stresses that the Privacy Shield framework gives EU member state’s data protection agencies a prominent role in examining data protection claims and notes their power to suspend data transfers. It also notes the obligation placed upon the US Department of Commerce to resolve such complaints.

Finally, MEPs call on the Commission to conduct periodic “robust reviews” of its decision that Privacy Shield protection is adequate, particularly in the light of experience with the new EU data protection rules which are to take effect in two years.

In other words, the EU and the US are far from a complete and acceptable agreement.

Green home affairs and data protection spokesperson Jan Philipp Albrecht said:

The proposed ‘Privacy Shield’ framework does not seem like a viable long-term solution. It seems highly questionable that this new framework addresses the concerns outlined by the European Court of Justice in ruling the Safe Harbour decision illegal. The European Commission cannot issue a blank check for the transfer of European citizens’ data to the US. Instead, it has to continue to insist on improvements to the level of data protection.

At the same time the centre-right group, EPP, is impatient to have a new agreement in place – seemingly without having the same concerns over privacy and data protection.

The EPP Group’s Spokesman on the issue, Axel Voss MEP, warned against any attempt to torpedo the finalisation of the Privacy Shield, listing benefits to European consumers and SMEs alike: “Free cross-border data flows between the EU and the US are of paramount importance for our economies, trade and investment. Data flows are a key element for the competitiveness of business. Therefore the EPP Group welcomes the conclusion of the negotiations between the EU and the US on this topic.”

Now, we will have to wait to see what the European Commission makes of this.

/ HAX

Links:
• European Parliament: EU-US “Privacy Shield” for data transfers: further improvements needed, MEPs say »
• Greens-EFA: EU-US ‘Privacy Shield’ data exchange »
• EPP: EU-US data flows: urgent implementation of Privacy Shield needed »
• Ars Technica: EU data protection chief: We have serious concerns about Privacy Shield »

Previous posts on The EU-US Privacy Shield: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

See an interview with Max Scherms, who took Safe Harbour to the European Court of Justice »

0

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive

By on May 26, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Human rights, War on Terror

Next year, when your Member State starts blocking websites, without quite knowing why, when it starts imposing restrictions on Tor and proxy servers, without quite knowing why, when unaccountable, unclear legislation leads to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and your government says that it is “EU law that it is obliged to implement” and you wonder why the press never reported on it, when you search in vain for who is accountable for a weak and dangerous text, come back and read this again.

EDRi: Next year, you’ll complain about the Terrorism Directive »

0

EU:s EPP group calls for Internet censorship

By on May 24, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, War on Terror

The centre-right group in the European Parliament, EPP, just released an article on its’ website: The Fight Against Online Radicalisation »

Let me copy paste a few passages…

This would mean limiting the internet reach that ISIS and other extremist groups have on our social media networks. To ban them completely would be impossible as it is difficult enough to figure out who is an extremist recruiter and who isn’t on Facebook and Twitter, but we can certainly limit and delete their Facebook pages and bar their accounts. (…)

It has been agreed that Europol is to obtain greater powers to deal with the tackling of the terrorist threat online. New specialist units, monitored by an European Data Protection Supervisor and a Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group, will be set up that will be able to contact social network providers (Facebook, Twitter etc.) directly to ask that pages and accounts run by ISIS are shut down as fast as possible.

Obviously, we need to make a stand against radical Islamism and others who advocate violence and who do not respect human rights and civil liberties. But is censorship really the right way to do it?

Either you have freedom of speech or you don’t. If you restrict free speech, e.g. by censoring Internet content, per definition you have lost it.

The only acceptable exception would be clearly expressed, substantial threats directed against other people’s life, security or property.

It is true that radical Islamism is a murderous ideology. But so is Communism and Fascism. Banning all bad and dangerous doctrines would have far-reaching implications. And who is to decide what to censor?

If we introduce far-reaching online censorship you can be absolutely sure that it will be extended beyond its’ original purpose.

Actually, we are already there. In many countries, xenophobic and anti-immigration Internet activities are prohibited, censored and can lead to prosecution. What is considered to be acceptable opinions or banned hate speech is a matter of definition. And once again, who is to decide?

The irony of it all is that the same set of rules are used to silence radical Islamism as anti-Muslim, anti-immigration rants.

Radical Islamism aiming at limiting other people’s freedom, human rights and/or civil rights must be opposed. Strongly. But it must be done in a frank debate and by good examples.

You simply cannot defend a free and open society by limiting people’s human and civil rights (such as freedom of speech).

/ HAX

1

European Parliament to tackle virtual currencies and Blockchain

By on May 23, 2016 in Big Government, Bitcoin, Blockchain, Economics, EU

This week, the European Parliament will debate (Wednesday) and vote (Thursday) on a report on virtual currencies.

First of all, this is a report – not legislation. But it will be handed over to the European Commission for consideration.

It is interesting to see how the EP seems to think that virtual currencies can be regulated and incorporated in existing regulations and legal frameworks. Of course, a new virtual currency can do that. But when it comes to Bitcoin and other existing currencies – I cannot understand how this is supposed to be done. (And it shouldn’t.)

The EP also seems to believe that virtual currencies have some sort of governing bodies, that could be held accountable in front of the EU and national authorities.

On the positive side, the report states that no special legislation for virtual currencies is needed – for the time being. (“More tailor-made legislation might be needed.”)

Here are some parts of the report that might be of interest. (VC = virtual currencies. DLT = distributed ledger technology = Blockchain.)

19. Welcomes the Commission’s suggestions for including VC exchange platforms in the Anti-Money-Laundering Directive (AMLD) in order to end the anonymity associated with such platforms; expects that any proposal in this regard will be targeted, justified by means of a full analysis of the risks associated with VCs, and based on a thorough impact assessment;

20. Recommends that the Commission draw up a comprehensive analysis of VCs and, on the basis of this assessment, consider, if appropriate, revising the relevant EU legislation on payments, including the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD), the Payment Services Directive (PSD) and the Electronic Money Directive (EMD), in light of the new possibilities afforded by new technological developments including VCs and DLT, with a view to further enhancing competition and lowering transaction costs, including by means of enhanced interoperability and possibly also via the promotion of a universal and non-proprietary electronic wallet;

21. Observes that several virtual local currencies have been created in Europe, not least as a response to the financial crises and the related credit crunch problems; urges particular caution when defining virtual currencies, in the context of any future legislative proposals, with a view to taking proper account of the existence of ‘local currencies’ of a not-for-profit nature, often having limited fungibility and providing significant social and environmental benefits, and to preventing disproportionate regulation in this area, as long as taxation is neither avoided nor circumvented;

22.Calls for the creation of a horizontal Task Force DLT (TF DLT) led by the Commission, consisting of technical and regulatory experts, in order to:

i) provide the necessary technical and regulatory expertise across the various sectors of pertinent DLT applications, bring together stakeholders and support the relevant public actors at EU and Member State level in their efforts to monitor DLT use at the European level and globally;

ii) foster awareness and analyse the benefits and risks – including to end-users – of DLT applications in order to make best use of their potential, including by aiming to identify a core set of attributes of DLT schemes conducive to the general interest, such as non-proprietary open standards, and by identifying standards for best practice where such standards are emerging;

iii) support a timely, well-informed and proportionate response to the new opportunities and challenges arising with the introduction of significant DLT applications, including by means of a roadmap for future steps at EU and Member State level which would include an assessment of existing European regulation, with a view to updating it in response to significant and systemic DLT use where appropriate, also addressing consumer protection and systemic challenges;

iv) develop stress tests for all relevant aspects of VCs and other DLT schemes that reach a level of use that would make them systemically important for stability;

23. Stresses the importance of consumer awareness, transparency and trust when using VCs; calls on the Commission to develop, in cooperation with the Member States and the VC industry, guidelines with the aim of guaranteeing that correct, clear and complete information is provided for existing and future VC users, to allow them to make a fully informed choice and thus enhance the transparency of VC schemes in terms of how they are organised and operated and how they distinguish themselves from regulated and supervised payment systems in terms of consumer protection;

The devil is in the details. (My emphasis above.)

Apparently the EP has found something new to regulate. The fact that its’ members don’t seem to grasp the concept of virtual currencies and Blockchain will not stop them. And that is not an unusual approach when it comes to EP reports…

At best this report is a waste of time. But it can be used by the Commission to justify future legislation.

/ HAX

• The report, 2016/2007(INI) »
• As PDF »
• EP summary »

4

More on TTIP, IP and the Internet

By on May 6, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Copyright, EU, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, US

“Reading between the lines, it would seem that the United States negotiators are being heavied by their IP industries to push for stronger measures on IPR enforcement. This would be consistent with the industry lobbying on the previous attempt for an EU-US copyright treaty – known as ACTA or Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It is also consistent with the intensity of the relationship between the lead US negotiating body, the United States Trae Representative (USTR) and representatiives of the US entertainment industries – notably the Motion picture Association of America (MPAA).

A suggestion that is hinted at by the EU negotiators is a new IPR Committee. It is not clear where such a committee would be based, or what its role is, but we can safely assume that it will incorporate the interests of the US corporations who seek to influence EU policy.”

Monica Horten at IPTegrity.com – TTIP leaks: US warned on sensitive IPR issues »

0

EU: Privatised censorship and surveillance

By on May 4, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Censorship, Copyright, EU, Intellectual Property, Internet

In relation to the real motivation behind the privatised censorship proposals (copyright), the draft talks about platforms “which make available copyright-protected content uploaded by end-users”. The wording is very deliberate. While the E-Commerce Directive gives liability protection to hosting companies that passively host content on behalf of their users, “making available” is an active use of content for which the rightsowner has a “exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public”. As a result, any “making available” by online platforms without prior consent of the rightsholder would be a breach of copyright, for which the platform would be liable. The only option for being liable for a “making available” by your customers is to subject any uploads to prior checking, filtering and/or takedown in cases of doubt. Online platforms already delete vast amounts of perfectly legal content uploaded by users, so this new incentive would make the situation even worse.

EDRi: Leaked EU Communication – Part 1: Privatised censorship and surveillance »

0

Todays TTIP leak and the Internet

By on May 2, 2016 in Big Data, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, Human rights, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP, US

Today a batch of documents concerning the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been leaked by Greenpeace.

As suspected there are worrying indications when it comes to the future of a free and open Internet.

• TTIP might result in the EU and US being able to ignore fundamental human rights (such as the right to privacy) when it comes to telecommunications. This is serious, as such issues have been central in previous legislative acts concerning the Internet.

• With the EU-US Privacy Shield still being a pretty open issue, TTIP seems to move the issue of data transfers in favour of Big Data. It is doubtful if there will be any meaningful protection of personal data being transferred from EU to the US.

• When it comes to Intellectual Property (IP), there are signs that TTIP will move to make Internet Service Providers to “voluntary” police the net. In other words, TTIP seems to make another try to re-introduce IP provisions that the European Parliament has already rejected in ACTA.

IP issues in TTIP seems to be open for negotiations and last-minute amendments. EDRi explains…

Concerning so-called “Intellectual Property” (IP), the negotiators seem to take lobbyists’ wish list very seriously. According to the leaked report, “[w]hen confronted with EU warning that bringing sensitive proposals that would require changes in EU law to the table – and doing it at a late stage of the negotiation – may have a negative impact on stakeholders” (which would apparently not include citizens) “and has very limited chances of being accepted”, the US seemed to be prepared to depart from the model of the TPP. Among the proposals the US is thinking of tabling, it includes privatised enforcement measures, that EDRi has been criticising since its inception because they bypass the rule of law and lead to arbitrary corporate decision-making without accountability (cf. “voluntary stakeholder initiatives”). As with ACTA, the US is strongly supportive of “voluntary initiatives” as US-based global giants already impose US copyright law on a global level. The EU (as shown by the recent leak of the Communication on Platforms) supports this approach.

It’s still early days. And there is no lack of warning signals.

So, I guess there will be yet another battle over a free and open Internet. (Frustratingly, in part it seems to be the same battle over IP issues being fought over and over again.)

/ HAX

• Greenpeace: TTIP Leaks »
• EDRi: TTIP leaks confirm dangers for digital rights »
• The Guardian: Leaked TTIP documents cast doubt on EU-US trade deal »
• Europan Commission: EU negotiating texts in TTIP »
• EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmström: Negotiating TTIP »

0

Data protection: EU-US standoff

By on April 25, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Data Protection, EU, Privacy, US

The EU-US Privacy Shield is to replace the so-called safe harbour agreement about the transfer of personal data between EU and the US — after the European Court of Justice (ECJ) invalidated the latter.

As reported earlier, the privacy shield is a principal agreement that yet has to be filled with substance. Even though the European Commission and Washington claim to have struck a deal, it is far from being finalised.

Actually, things are moving the opposite way. Reuters:

Last week, the EU’s 28 data protection authorities – known as the Article 29 Working Party – published a non-binding opinion on the framework which called for more reassurances over U.S. surveillance practices and the independence of a new U.S. privacy ombudsman.

Leaving some of the regulators’ concerns unaddressed could increase the chances of the Privacy Shield being challenged in court by privacy advocates, much as its predecessor was.

This is a mess. Obviously, the EU is not strong enough to stand up to the US on data protection. And the US is not interested in respecting a strong European legal framework in this field.

Some links:
• EU data enforcers demand privacy shield fixes »
• Privacy panel trips up transatlantic data deal »
• US businesses: Start preparing for the EU’s new privacy regulation »
• U.S. reluctant to change data pact after EU watchdogs’ concerns »

Earlier posts:
• “EU-US Privacy Shield must be sent back to negotiators” »
• The EU-US Privacy Shield: EU presents a pointless proposal »
• The EU-US Privacy Shield Illusion »
• An EU-US Privacy Shield? »

/ HAX

0