After long negotiations behind closed doors…
EU strikes deal on data protection rules »
Update – EDRi: Data Protection Package – The bare essentials appear to have been salvaged from the lobby storm »
Archive | EU
What you need to know about Passenger Name Records (PNR)
The EU is about to adopt a new regulation regarding registration of our air travel.
Passenger Name Records (PNR) has earlier been blocked by the European Parliament, because of privacy concerns. But after the Parris attacks, it seems to be impossible to prevent this form of surveillance.
EDRi has published a detailed FAQ about PNR. »
The Directive is being adopted despite concerns raised by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Article 29 Working Party. A study undertaken for the Council of Europe explained that “no serious, verifiable evidence has been produced by the proponents of compulsory suspicionless data collection to show that data mining and profiling by means of the bulk data in general, or the compulsory addition of bulk PNR data to the data mountains already created in particular, is even suitable to the ends supposedly being pursued –let alone that it is effective”
Notice that data will be saved up to five years — not six months (as many politicians would like us to believe).
EU: It’s Snowden-time!
It is getting painfully clear: No single western democracy will stand up against the US to grant NSA-whistleblower Edward Snowden refuge – and refuse to hand him over to Washington.
So it’s time for plan B: Let’s campaign for the EU to provide sanctuary for Snowden.
Snowden is a very hot potato for western politicians. There is a clear public demand to grant him asylum or some other form of protection. On the other hand, the US will apply extreme pressure on any country that does.
In the EU, politicians can do the right thing — and avoid to take the heat directly. Questions from the US could be directed to Brussels and the European Commission can blame the European Parliament. No single country or politician will have to stand up against the US administration.
The initiative (probably) will have to come from the European Commission. That’s the tricky part. When it comes to the European Parliament — it has already stated that it wants the EU to provide refuge for Snowden. On the opposing side, we will find most of the member states in the European Council.
It might also be possible to involve the Council of Europe (this is not an EU institution, as this organization has more member states and is the guardian of the Europan Convention on Human Rights).
Let’s use the EU for something good, for a change.
/ HAX
Short-circuiting democracy the EU way
Laws should be made in a transparent way and in a dialogue with the rest of society.
In the EU, lawmaking (directives) is supposed to meet such criteria: It often starts with a public consultation followed by a proposal from the European Commission. Member states are heard in the Council and the people’s elected representatives can amend and adopt or reject such proposals in the European Parliament. The Council and the Parliament will have to agree for a directive to be passed. A proposal can be rejected up to three times in the Parliament before it has to be withdrawn by the Commission. (It can then be re-written or withdrawn altogether.)
This is a slow process. And that is a good thing. Laws should not be rushed trough.
But the EU is an inpatient organization. Often there are special interests pushing for a directive, pressure from abroad or some other hidden agendas pushing the legislative dossiers.
So the EU is using an instrument called trialogues to speed things up. These are not supported in the treaty of the European Union. They are just… used.
The purpose of a trialogue is to speed up legislation. In this process representatives from the Commission, the Council and the Parliament hold meetings behind closed doors – negotiating for some sort of a compromise. The records are secret and often it is also a secret who attends these meetings. There is no transparency and no way to hold anyone accountable.
These trialogues are ever more common. Some years, there can be up to 700 of them. Today most legislative dossiers are exempted from the regular democratic process in the EU and settled in trialogues.
The result is that the public and the media is being kept away from the process. Civil society, activists and the academic world have no way to influence what is going on — not even if something is going terribly wrong.
Trialogues are especially common when it comes to matters concerning mass surveillance, copyright and telecommunications (such as Internet related issues). Here the power elite and special interests are particularly intent to avoid public scrutiny.
After a trialogue, the Council and the Parliament still will have to adopt or reject the proposal. But in general, it is always adopted by mildly embarrassed politicians — who know that there are back-room deals that should not be scrutinized too carefully.
When I used to work in the European Parliament, there was a joke that was too close to the truth for comfort: In the EU, first they decide. After that, there might be a discussion. And after that, in some cases people even might bother to find out the facts.
In the EU, the democratic process has been short-circuited.
/ HAX
Links:
• Civil society calls for reform of trialogues in a letter to EU Commission, Parliament and Council »
• Ombudsman opens investigation to promote transparency of “trilogues” »
• The Council challenges the right of the European Ombudsman to conduct an inquiry into secret “trilogues” (in which most EU legislation is decided) »
Pirate sites: To block out or not to block out?
By HAX on November 27, 2015 in Big Entertainment, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property
Today the Swedish district court of Stockholm ruled that internet service providers (ISP:s) can not be forced to block out pirate sites like the Pirate Bay. (TorrentFreak» | Also in Swedish»)
But it’s still early days. Copyright holders are to appeal the verdict. However, it’s very unusual that Swedish lower courts take bold stands. This might indicate that the judicial system has found that there is a strong case against blocking.
Interestingly, yesterday the German federal court ruled in the opposite direction. (TorrentFreak» | Also in German»)
The key issue seems to be if an ISP can be considered a co-culprit of copyright infringement in relation to the EU Infosoc directive. Conflicting judgements in different member states indicate that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will have to address the issue. And this can happen soon as a Dutch court already has asked the ECJ for guidance in a similar case.
However, it is possible for a member state to have a stronger copyright protection than required in the EU directive. But this issue might also concern freedom of enterprise and freedom of speech. So there is a high level of uncertainty and confusion.
From a practical point of view, it is interesting to see that blocking out pirate sites has little or no effect on illegal filesharing. (Link 1» | Link 2»)
The bigger question is the principle that ISP:s are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their network (mere conduit). This is a well-established principle in the EU.
In comparison, telephone companies are not liable for what people might say on their phone lines; postal services are not liable for what people send in the mail; owners of roads are not liable for criminals driving around.
If ISP:s were to be responsible for their customers activities — they would have to police everything we do online. Everything. That would be practically extremely difficult and a fierce violation of privacy. (But proponents of mass surveillance often seem to see this as an opportunity to establish new points where to tap into public communications.)
/ HAX
Post Paris: EU to clamp down on Bitcoin, gold and pre-paid credit cards
Tomorrow, Friday, EU interior and justice ministers will meet in Brussels — for an emergency meeting after the Paris terror attacks.
According to Reuters, EU member states “plan a crackdown on virtual currencies and anonymous payments made online and via pre-paid cards in a bid to tackle terrorism financing”.
“They will urge the European Commission, the EU executive arm, to propose measures to “strengthen controls of non-banking payment methods such as electronic / anonymous payments and virtual currencies and transfers of gold, precious metals, by pre-paid cards,” draft conclusions of the meeting said.”
In other words, governments would like to take control of all forms of payments except cash. And with EU rules against money laundering access to cash also can be quite restricted.
It would be very interesting to know how the EU is supposed to “strengthen control” of Bitcoin — as the system is totally decentralized. I doubt that they can.
But they can make life more difficult for ordinary people if clamping down on e.g. pre-paid credit cards and online payment systems.
This EU meeting is being held in panic, with politicians desperate to look as if they are doing something of substance to combat terrorism. So, I guess, they really haven’t thought things trough. And they leave all the details to the European Commission to figure out.
This might result not in an EU directive, but an EU regulation. If that will be the case, measures can quickly be implemented without having to involve the people’s elected representatives in the European Parliament.
/ HAX
EU centre-right group using Paris tragedy to try to kill data protection directive
By HAX on November 18, 2015 in Big Brother, Civil liberties, Data Protection, EU, Police state, surveillance, Uncategorized, War on Terror
Since the Paris attacks politicians, police and intelligence agencies have pushed for more mass surveillance. And now, it seems they are also trying to undermine the new EU framework for data protection.
The EU data protection directive has been under massive fire from special interests and member states in the council. But the European Parliament has been firm in insisting on a clear and meaningful framework to protect citizens private data.
Now the centre-right group in the parliament, the EPP, is trying to suspend these negotiations.
“In the aftermath of the cruel attacks in Paris on Friday, Axel Voss MEP, in his capacity as EPP Group Shadow Rapporteur for the Data Protection Directive, has called for the immediate suspension of the Data Protection Directive trialogues and a review of the mandate to identify the impact of the draft text on law enforcement capacity to exchange information.” (…)
“According to Axel Voss, the text stipulates major bureaucratic burdens to law enforcement and security entities and would basically transform them into data protection officers when processing personal data for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences and terrorist activities.”
What this is all about, is the EPP trying to use the tragedy in Paris to undermine the demands for authorities to use citizens personal data in a responsible way. But there should and must be rules for authorities as well.
Data protection is more important today than ever before. Especially when authorities are riding on a wave of fear, trying to advance their positions when it comes to surveillance and data mining.
Link: Data Protection Directive trialogue should be suspended »
/ HAX
Sanctuary for Snowden!
There is a widespread misinterpretation of what the European Parliament had to say about the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden last week.
The EP did not grant Snowden asylum. It can’t. This is what was decided:
2. Calls on the EU Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender;
In the EU, only member states can grant him asylum or other forms of sanctuary. And they rather not.
So, it’s up to us.
If you live in an EU member state, you must try to influence your government to do the right thing.
You will have to start petitions, set up Facebook groups, hold rallies, write to politicians and increase the political pressure in your country. That’s the only way to move this matter forward.
Edward Snowden exposed global mass surveillance. He showed the world that politicians do not trust the people. He revealed that our political leaders and their functionaries do not care about human and civil rights.
Edward Snowden is a hero. And he should be treated as one.
But to make that happen, you must get involved.
/ HAX
This might be the end of a free and open Internet
There has been a long-lasting battle over net neutrality in the European Union. Worries are that Big Telecom will throttle traffic and hold e.g. startups hostage — in order to press them for money, in exchange for giving them access to what can be described as regular Internet services.
All the big telecoms operators replied that they would never do that. So, the EU went along with some seemingly reasonable exceptions in the framework…
The EC has been couching these as “services like IPTV, high-definition videoconferencing or healthcare services like telesurgery” — which it says use the Internet protocol and the same access network but “require a significant improvement in quality or the possibility to guarantee some technical requirements to their end-users”.
This legal framework passed the European Parliament just the other day.
There is demand on the part of providers of content, applications and services to be able to provide electronic communication services other than internet access services, for which specific levels of quality, that are not assured by internet access services, are necessary. Such specific levels of quality are, for instance, required by some services responding to a public interest or by some new machine-to-machine communications services. Providers of electronic communications to the public, including providers of internet access services, and providers of content, applications and services should therefore be free to offer services which are not internet access services and which are optimised for specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, where the optimisation is necessary in order to meet the requirements of the content, applications or services for a specific level of quality.
Quickly Deutsche Telecom seized the opportunity…
Writing in a blog post yesterday DT CEO Timotheus Höttges suggests the carrier is preparing to use the provision of specialized services to charge startups for “guaranteed good transmission quality” — arguing this will offer them a way to compete with better resourced rivals, such as large tech platforms like Google.
For smaller companies and startups to have the same access to the Intenet as today (and as Big Business) they would only have to “pay a couple of percent for this in the form of revenue-sharing”.
Until this day, the Internet has been an arena where companies of all sorts and sizes have been able to compete freely on equal terms. The Internet has been free and open for all. Those days of the Internet as a common utility now seems to be over.
Naturally one can argue that carriers can do whatever they want with their net. But with the Internet being a global common infrastructure everything is interconnected and rather complicated.
If big ISP:s starts to throttle and compartmentalize their parts of the network — it will be the end of a free and open Internet as we know it.
And it will be the end of an era of free enterprise for all on a level playing field Internet.
I really hoped that the big carriers would have a reasonable approach to the new EU rules — and only apply exceptions the way they were meant to be applied. But, sadly, the opposite did happen.
I’m all pro free markets. But today, I’m very disappointed with Deutsche Telecom and those carriers who will, no doubt, follow in their steps as this door has now been opened.
For the European Commission and the European Parliament, they just have to realize that they have been royally screwed by the telecoms lobby. However, the EU member states in the Council must be very pleased. They have always represented the interest of their old, ex-monopoly, formerly state-owned telecoms giants.
Link: Carrier DT Targets Startups After Europe Agrees Net Neutrality Rules »
/ HAX
Update, also read: Deutsche Telekom chief causes uproar over net neutrality »
European Parliament supports Snowden and Badawi
By HAX on October 29, 2015 in Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, NSA & Snowden
Thursday was in some aspects a good day in the European Parliament.
In a resolution on mass surveillance (I’ll get back to that one when we have the final, consolidated text) the EP voted on the Edward Snowden case. (Link»)
By 285 votes to 281, MEPs decided to call on EU member states to “drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistle-blower and international human rights defender”.
A very slim victory, but still a victory.
However, most EU member states refuse to give Snowden asylum or other forms of protection. It has been said that they cannot deviate from normal asylum routines (including that the asylum seeker would have to show up in an EU country to have his case examined). But one should keep in mind that most EU states have granted human rights activists and dissidents protection on purely political grounds outside the ordinary asylum process.
So, it’s purely about political will.
Today the EP also rewarded its human rights award — the Sakharov prize — to the Saudi liberal blogger Raif Badawi. (Link»)
Badawi has been put in prison for ten years and is also sentenced to 1,000 lashes for having “insulted” the Saudi political system and the religion.
“This man, who is an extremely good man, an exemplary man, has had imposed on him one of the most gruesome penalties,” Mr Schulz told a packed European Parliament assembly in Strasbourg, France.
“I call on the Saudi king to immediately free him. Relations depend on human rights being respected by our partners… they are not only not being respected but are being trodden underfoot.”
This is a strong political signal, even though it might not really interfere in any substantial way when it comes to relations between the EU and Saudi Arabia. (Unless the Saudis goes bananas, as they have done when being criticised about the Badawi case on earlier occasions.)
/ HAX