Navigation

Archive | EU

Don’t stay silent when the EU take our civil rights away

By on September 23, 2016 in Big Brother, Big Data, Censorship, Civil liberties, Democracy, EU, Freedom of Speech, Human rights, Internet, Rule of law, social media

The EU has formed an alliance with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Microsoft to block Internet content that aims to radicalize people – and hate speech. It is called the Joint Referral Platform.

This is, per definition, about limiting free speech. As such, this taps into democratic core issues.

The plan is to have the social networks and platforms to carry out this censorship, referring to their user terms and conditions – that more or less allows them to censor or ban anyone. They don’t have to explain their actions. There is no possibility to appeal or redress.

Naturally, this is something that civil rights organisations and Internet activists must look into, analyse and keep a close eye on. Here is an apparent possibility for the political system to restrict free speech without getting its own hands dirty, without having to deal with legislation or the judicial system.

But when European Digital Rights, EDRi, asked for information – the European Commission first stalled their request and then refused to share information.

The reason presented by the Commission is notable. It is said that openness could undermine a highly sensitive on-going process. No shit, Sherlock.

The entire point is that this is highly sensitive. It’s about a public-private partnership to limit free speech. That is why transparency is of immense importance.

To make things even worse, the Commission seems to be unwilling to provide information about the legal basis for the Joint Referral Platform.

This is not how to conduct things in a democratic society.

Sadly, this is typical for how the EU apparatus works. Democratic principles and core values are brushed aside. Rule of law is disregarded. Human and civil rights are ignored.

And they usually get away with it.

This time, it’s about free speech online. Regardless of what people think of limiting what can be said on the Internet – everyone ought to agree that limitations of fundamental rights must be handled with extreme care and in an open, democratic process.

We must try to get the European Parliament to look into this. The MEP:s are democratically elected – and are, as such, at least somewhat uncomfortable with ignoring strong and loud public opinion.

This might also be a case for the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights.

You simply cannot stay silent when they take our civil rights away.

/ HAX

EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »

1

EDRi vs. the EU on internet censorship

By on September 22, 2016 in Big Brother, Censorship, Civil liberties, EU, Internet, Rule of law, social media

First, since the Joint Referral Platform has not been “launched”, the Commission argued it did not possess some of the information we asked for. It recognised, however, that it holds relevant documents. Yet, the Commission did not publish any documents because this can undermine public security, commercial interests of the internet industry involved, “jeopardise the protection of integrity of their managers” and undermine a “highly sensitive on-going process”. We would tend to agree that privatising criminal enforcement and putting it in the hands of – generally foreign – internet companies would undermine public security, although this may not be what the Commission meant.

Second, when we asked the Commission about the goals and (legal) principles under which this Joint Referral Platform will be launched, the Commission omitted any information about the legal basis for this. It solely restated the wording of the the Communication of 20 April 2016.

EDRi: Joint Referral Platform: no proof of diligent approach to terrorism »

0

Open WiFi hotspots, city-WiFi and anonymity

By on September 19, 2016 in Anonymity, Big Brother, Copyright, ECJ, EU, File Sharing, Intellectual Property, IPRED, Privacy, surveillance

Last week European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker proposed open city WiFi networks. This left us with some unanswered questions, e.g. about the rules for liability when it comes to copyright infringements. (Link»)

The very next day a ruling in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) brought some clarity. And raised some new questions.

The court finds that a measure consisting in password-protecting an Internet connection may dissuade the users of that connection from infringing copyright or related rights, provided that those users are required to reveal their identity in order to obtain the required password and may not therefore act anonymously, a matter which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

Ars Technica wrote…

Businesses such as coffee shops that offer a wireless network free of charge to their customers aren’t liable for copyright infringements committed by users of that network, the ruling states—which, in part, chimes with an earlier advocate general’s opinion. But hotspot operators may be required, following a court injunction, to password-protect their Wi-Fi networks to stop or prevent such violations. (…)

The implications are obvious: no more free and anonymous Wi-Fi access in bars, cafes, or hotels in countries within the 28-member-state bloc that can now use existing law to demand that users hand over their ID first.

Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda commented…

Juncker’s free Wi-Fi plan is aimed at travellers, refugees, and other groups that could not possibly be expected to identify themselves before using a public Wi-Fi. The commission is even advertising its new initiative as password-free. This ruling means that copyright holders will be able to foil that plan and require free Wi-Fi providers to restrict access to their networks.

Let me add to the confusion.

First, let’s have a look at the situation for traditional hotspot operators such as cafés.

It is not reasonable to expect a café owner to keep a database of all local WiF users. That would require an extensive and very privacy sensitive register that cannot be tampered with and that can stand up to legal procedures. And still, it would do nothing to identify an individual user on the cafés single IP address. At least not with the relatively cheap and simple WiFi equipment normally used in such places.

It all quickly gets complicated and expensive. This would effectively kill free WiFi with your coffee.

The same general questions can be raised when it comes to Juncker’s free city WiFi. But there is a difference. Public sector operated WiFi will have more money and can apply common technical standards. As the number of users in a city-WiFi can be expected to be substantially higher that at a single café – there would not only need to be some sort of password protection but also individual user names, linked to personal identity. At least if you want to meet with the ECJ ambition to be able to identify single users.

In both cases, anonymity will be more or less impossible.

And when it comes to city-WiFi, we can expect various law enforcement and intelligence agencies to show a keen interest.

/ HAX

Ars Technica: Wi-Fi providers not liable for copyright infringements, rules top EU court »

2

EU: Mixed signals on open Wi-Fi networks

By on September 15, 2016 in Anonymity, Copyright, ECJ, EU, File Sharing

Europe’s top court has ruled that Wi-Fi providers aren’t liable for any copyright infringements that take place on their network—it has also created uncertainty about users’ anonymity.

Businesses such as coffee shops that offer a wireless network free of charge to their customers aren’t liable for copyright infringements committed by users of that network, the ruling states—which, in part, chimes with an earlier advocate general’s opinion. But hotspot operators may be required, following a court injunction, to password-protect their Wi-Fi networks to stop or prevent such violations. (…)

The implications are obvious: no more free and anonymous Wi-Fi access in bars, cafes, or hotels in countries within the 28-member-state bloc that can now use existing law to demand that users hand over their ID first.

Ars Technica: Wi-Fi providers not liable for copyright infringements, rules top EU court »

0

5 July podcast 17: EU copyright reform, free city WiFi and Mozillas web developer conference

By on September 15, 2016 in 5 July podcast, Big Media, Copyright, EU, Internet

The 5 July podcast – your channel to information about what’s going on when it comes to Internet politics, mass surveillance and civil rights.

On EU copyright “reform”, free city WiFi and Mozilla’s web developer conference in Berlin. Now in English.

More information and episode notes at Soundcloud.

Soundcloud » | Youtube » | Download (MP3) »

Feedback and comments (MP3) to: karl[at]5july.org

0

EU: Junckers’ mixed signals on mobile networks

By on September 14, 2016 in Copyright, EU, Free Markets, Internet, surveillance

Today the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gave his “State of the Union” speech in the European Parliament.

EU Observer reports…

Every city in the EU will offer free wireless internet access in its centre by 2020, EU commission president Juncker promised in his state of the EU speech on Wednesday. “We need to be connected. Our economy needs it. People need it,” said Juncker. He also said that a faster mobile network, known as 5G, should be “fully deployed” in the EU by 2025.

Two reflections:

First, it is becoming ever harder for cafés, restaurants, and others to provide free internet access for their customers. The reason is that they can become liable for any copyright infringements their customers may commit. (Mainly because of EU regulations.)

Doesn’t this apply for “cities” as well? Will there be separate rules for free WiFi provided by private and public entities?

Second, there is the matter of what you see and what you don’t see. Free WiFi sounds like a good idea for most people. But what will the effects be on commercial networks? As you cannot compete with free (or rather stuff paid for by the taxpayers) – will this hamper the deployment of e.g. “faster mobile networks”? It seems like Juncker is sending mixed and conflicting signals.

Finally, one must put free, public networks into the context of mass surveillance. Exactly who will operate them – and what law enforcement agencies will these operators collaborate with?

/ HAX

0