Navigation

Archive | EU

Central banks fear Bitcoin

By on October 24, 2016 in Bitcoin, Blockchain, EU

A piece of news that has been sadly under-reported is that the European Central Bank (ECB) has called for tightened rules on digital currencies such as Bitcoin. The reason, according to Reuters is a fear that they “might one day weaken its own control over money supply in the euro zone”. (Link»)

The European Commission has been fairly relaxed when it comes to digital currencies, being aware of the dynamic evolution of Blockchain-based electronic money. It seems the Commission realizes there is no way the Brussels bureaucracy can grasp or foresee all the different ways Bitcoins can / will be used and the technical development. (The EU, however, demands that identity must be proven when changing electronic currencies for fiat money.)

However, this opinion from the ECB might change that. After all, the EU is struggling to keep the common European currency – the Euro – afloat.

While the ECB is “printing” money as mad, Bitcoin has a known volume growth rate and a given maximum volume. The real value of the Euro is slowly decreasing with inflation, while (despite its volatility and other problems) the value of Bitcoins seems to slowly be on the rise.

If nothing else, this exposes how central banks are robbing the people, by stealth. Clearly, that is not popular with central bankers.

We also know from the Euro crisis that the ECB and national central banks are prepared to take drastic steps to protect the Euro. Greece has seen closed banks and limits on ATM withdrawals. In Cyprus, the public had a portion of its bank savings confiscated. In this perspective, the Euro has lost much of its trustworthiness against e.g. Bitcoin.

And it doesn’t have to be Bitcoin or Ethereum. Chances are that someone sooner or later will create a new digital currency that has learned from the problems and mistakes made by its predecessors, winning wider public trust and acceptance.

But no government and no central bank can end the development of digital currencies. There might be government Luddism and some countries will try to outlaw them. But Blockchain-based digital money cannot be stopped. And there will always be a demand.

In the long run, the ECB might very well be right. Central banks risk losing control over money supply. But that is not because digital currencies are a bad idea. Rather the opposite. It’s because inflation, debt, and centralized systems are undermining the confidence in state-issued fiat money.

/ HAX

2

Yet another ill-conceived EU idea on fighting copyright infringements

By on October 20, 2016 in Big Entertainment, Civil liberties, Copyright, EU, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, Internet

The European Commission has a new idea – to fight copyright infringements by targeting companies who advertise on file sharing sites. To nobody’s surprise, what the commission suggests is a mess.

EDRi:s Joe McNamee:

It is currently discussing “guiding principles” for withdrawal of services by advertising companies to penalise and prevent “commercial scale” infringements. Tellingly, the final paragraph of the “guiding principles” contains very similar wording to the ill-fated “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” (ACTA) that was rejected in 2012.

Like ACTA, the “guiding principles” include illusory “safeguards”, such as references to non-existent legal terms like “fundamental principles” and “fair process” (not due process). Like ACTA, it refers to “commercial scale”, as if this was a safeguard. The European Commission itself has previously said that the term is too vague in existing law.

The text also refers to a “right to access lawful content”, even though there is no such “right”. We have a right to freedom of movement (not a right to legal movement), we have a right to freedom of communication. The implication of the expression “right to access lawful content” is that everything we do or say should be assumed to be illegal until proven otherwise. This is profoundly objectionable.

Why is it that every time the European Commission address issues like copyright, file sharing and a free and open Internet – they totally loose it?

The commissioners are supposed to be the elite of European bureaucracy and they have top legal advisors. But do they even know what they are doing? Or do they deliberately conspire to deceive the public?

/ HAX

EDRi: “Follow the money” on copyright infringements »

2

On TTIP, CETA, free trade and a free and open Internet

By on October 14, 2016 in Big Government, Data Protection, EU, Free Markets, Intellectual Property, Internet, Privacy, TTIP, US

I’m a free marketeer. I believe that free trade would be hugely beneficial for all.

I also believe in a free and open Internet. Especially as it provides a level playing field on which entrepreneurs from all over the world can join a global market, 24/7.

And I’m not at all happy with politicians and bureaucrats trying to force me to choose between the two.

The CETA (EU-Canada) and TTIP (EU-US) trade agreements are problematic. CETA will undermine Europeans right to data protection and privacy online. The same goes for TTIP, which also might contain intellectual property regulations undermining the principle that Internet service providers are not responsible for what their customers are up to in their cables (the mere conduit principle). That would have huge implications, leading to a strictly controlled Internet where everything you are up to must be approved in advance. When it comes to TTIP, we still have no comprehensive information about what is going to be included or not when it comes to IP – as negotiations are carried out behind closed doors.

Also, the ISDS mechanism in these trade agreements will make a much needed and long overdue copyright reform impossible.

But then, again, these trade agreements are not really about free trade. They are about »harmonizing« rules and regulations. So, they are really about regulating trade.

If you want free trade, all you have to do is to get rid of customs fees and other trade barriers. That would benefit us and all of the humanity greatly. But that is not what the politic and bureaucratic elite hope for. They want to regulate and control. The EU even has a special sub-bureaucracy for »trade defense«.

So, I don’t buy into it when they claim that these »free trade agreements« are about free trade.

I’m standing with free trade. And I’m standing with a free and open Internet. It is perfectly possible and logical to combine these standpoints with being critical to CETA and TTIP.

/ HAX

1

ECJ and EC on streaming

By on October 1, 2016 in Copyright, ECJ, EU, Intellectual Property, Internet

This week the European Court of Justice heard a crucial case that will give more clarity on the infringing nature of unauthorized streaming. Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN and the Spanish authorities argued that offering or watching pirate streams is a violation of the EU Copyright Directive. However, the European Commission believes that consumers who watch unauthorized streams are not breaking the law. (…)

Based on the hearing the Advocate General will issue a recommendation later this year, which will be followed by a final verdict from the EU Court of Justice somewhere early 2017.

TorrentFreak: Watching Pirate Streams Isn’t Illegal, EU Commission Argues »

0

Thoughtless and dangerous EU approach to free speech online

By on September 29, 2016 in Censorship, EU, Freedom of Speech, Internet, Rule of law, social media

There is a lot of ambiguity when it comes to the EU cooperation with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube/Google and Microsoft to censor the Internet – the Joint Referral Platform.

On the one hand, it has been marketed as a tool to stop »radicalization« that could lead young people to religiously motivated violence, e.g. terrorism or joining the Islamic State in the Middle East.

On the other hand, in documents and speeches the EU is totally focused on this project to stem »illegal online hate speech«, e.g. when it comes to racism and Islamophobia.

On that account, what is deemed to be »illegal« adds to the confusion. Incitement to violence is clearly and reasonably within this definition. But when it comes to the broader definition of hate speech, laws vary between EU member states.

Reason Magazine writes…

Recent “hate speech” investigations in European countries have been spawned by homily remarks by a Spanish Cardinal who opposed “radical feminism,” a hyperbolic hashtag tweeted by a U.K. diversity coordinator, a chant for fewer Moroccan immigrants to enter the Netherlands, comments from a reality TV star implying Scottish people have Ebola, a man who put a sign in his home window saying “Islam out of Britian,” French activists calling for boycotts of Israeli products, an anti-Semitic tweet sent to a British politician, a Facebook post referring to refugees to Germany as “scum,” and various other sorts of so-called “verbal radicalism” on social media.

A practical dilemma is that »hate« is something very subjective. Who is to define what is legitimate criticism and what is hate?

For instance, religion often has very real implications on how people are supposed to live their lives, how society should be organised and what kind of laws we should have. Clearly, you should be allowed to debate this freely in the same way that you debate politics. Yet, the tendency is that what is allowed to be said when  it comes to religion is becoming ever more narrow compared to politics.

Then, you have the problem that some laws against hate speech awards some groups of people different sets of rights compared to others.

When something becomes illegal to say about someone, but not someone else – you are treating people in different ways. This is a huge democratic problem and not the way to do things under the rule of law. What this can lead to, we can learn from history.

Finally, there is the general problem that this is all about censorship, about limiting free speech. You either have free speech or you don’t. If you stop people from expressing their opinions, by definition you do not have free speech. It’s as simple as that.

/ HAX

Links:
• Euro Logic: We Must Kill Free Speech to Promote Free Speech »
• United Against Hate Speech on the Web: Where do we stand? – Speech by Commissioner Jourová at Conference with German Justice Minister Maas »
• Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Microsoft Agree to Hate-Speech Code of Conduct »
• European Commission and IT Companies announce Code of Conduct on illegal online hate speech »
• EU code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online (PDF) »

1

The latest on TTIP and CETA

By on September 26, 2016 in EU, TTIP, US

At a key meeting in Bratislava last Friday, EU ministers effectively put the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations on hold, perhaps forever. Even the perennially upbeat EU commissioner responsible for trade, Cecilia Malmström, admitted: “All ministers expressed their doubts about being able to conclude this before the end of the Obama presidency, and indeed, it looks increasingly unlikely.” Since both candidates for the US presidency have said they are dissatisfied with current trade negotiations, that makes TTIP’s long-term fate extremely uncertain. (…)

The failure to be anywhere near completion of TTIP after three and a half years of negotiations has added to the political pressure on EU ministers to pass the smaller trade deal with Canada, known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Despite worries expressed by a number of member states, it looks increasingly likely that EU nations will formally sign CETA on October 18.

Glyn Moody in Ars Technica: TTIP on its deathbed, but CETA moves forward despite growing concerns »

0