Navigation

Intellectual property and trade agreements vs. a free and open internet

By on September 19, 2014 in EU, Global Politics, Intellectual Property, Internet, TTIP

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights is often included in various international trade agreements.

Sometimes this is done in general terms, not making any distinction between e.g. patents, copyright, trademarks and geographical indications. Politicians just look at the supposed value of IP–and decide that they want to protect it. (A rather blunt approach.)

In other cases IP issues are very specific, like in the (rejected) ACTA agreement. In ACTA the text suggested “voluntary cooperation” between copyright holders and internet service providers (ISP:s) to curb online piracy. This would, had the agreement been approved, have led to ISP:s having to police the net. And to police the net, you need to inspect and analyze all internet traffic.

Both approaches are problematic. Especially as international trade agreements normally are negotiated by bureaucrats behind closed doors–in effect impossible to influence for the general public and our elected representatives. This is a serious problem, as these agreements often will have the same impact as laws.

Naturally, you must be able to distinguish between different sorts of IP.

And you must make sure that international trade agreements are in line with important legal principles–as mere conduit in the EU E-Commerce Directive, ensuring that internet service providers are not liable for the information transmitted.

The next international trade agreement that might try to enforce IP rights is the EU-US free trade agreement, TTIP.

Naturally, free trade as in free trade is commendable. And if the interested parties are serious about setting up a transatlantic area of free trade–they ought to go easy on the IP chapter (or leave it out all together).

Any new attempts to enforce certain IP rights by trade agreements will backfire the same way ACTA did.

Links:
Cato Institute on Intellectual Property in Trade Agreements »
The ACTA demon rises. Again. And again. And again… »
Electronic Commerce Directive (EU) »
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) »

/ HAX

0

And now: Total Control

By on September 17, 2014 in Big Brother, Privacy, surveillance

Indect is an EU funded program for surveillance. Or rather for control. Pre Crime style.

This is a program coordinating many different elements and procedures…

  • CCTV and surveillance drones.
  • Various data bases (e.g. information from data retention)
  • Automated behaviour analysis.
  • Analysis of citizens web activities.
  • Mass surveillance NSA style.

And today, media reports suggest that the American FBI is ready to launch its new Facial Recognition System. (Links: 1» | 2» | 3»)

With such a technology finally in place Indect can take a significant step towards completion. And society will take yet another step towards a total control state.

Let’s hope that all our leaders–politicians and bureaucrats–are good, decent people. And that all those who will follow also are. Because if not, we have given people in high places a horrendous weapon against the people.

Read more about Indect here: Wikipedia» | Incect»

Or watch this video from Anonymous…


(Youtube»)

This is not Science Fiction. This is not conspiracy theories. It’s official. And it’s happening right now.

/ HAX

0

Using copyright to silence people

By on September 16, 2014 in Censorship, Freedom of Speech, Intellectual Property

The Disruptive Communications Project runs an important and interesting piece about “jurisprudence-shoping”— by Georgetown adjunct professor Matt Schruers.

His point is that copyright law and its’ far reaching remedies “are so attractive that they attract plaintiffs from other areas of the law”. This leads to legal migration, where all sorts of legal conflicts are dealt with under laws written with a totally different purpose.

For instance copyright law is being used to silence people who ought to be protected by freedom of speech.

For me, the Nadia Plesner case springs to mind. This artist was sued under copyright law by the luxury brand Louis Vuitton for depicting an undernourished African child holding a designer handbag in her painting Darfurnica.

Read the Schruer piece here » (Via: Techdirt)

/ HAX

0

Anakata in court: Hearsay instead of evidence

By on September 13, 2014 in Hacktivism, NSA & Snowden

The Danish court case against Pirate Bay founder Gottfrid Svartholm Warg got another bizarre twist this week: The police has no evidence.

According Politiken.dk the police and prosecutor have had no access to any actual evidence or to the alleged hacked IT equipment–in the most extensive hacking case in Danish history.

All information comes directly from the company supposedly being hacked, CSC.

It is absurd that this high profile court case seems to rely–totally–on blind trust in information given by one of the involved parties, on hearsay.

The phrase “trust us” has a rather hollow ring to it, comming from a company with close connections to US intelligence organisations, such as the NSA and the CIA.

This strange case just got even stranger.

Links:
Politiken.dk (in Danish) »
Background to the Anakata case »

/ HAX

2

Swedish ISP forcing EU Commission to act on data retention

By on September 12, 2014 in Data Retention, EU, Privacy, surveillance

As you can see from the blog post below, the EU Commission is avoiding the data retention dispute. The European Court of Justice has declared it illegal and in breach with human rights. This is being ignored by some EU member states–such as the UK and Sweden–who have no intention of ending blanket data retention.

But now the Commission will have to get on top of this controversy. Today Swedish ISP Bahnhof and the 5 July-foundation have filed a formal complaint, urging the Commission to take measures to end Swedish data retention.

This will take matters to a new level. The European Commission is obliged to uphold the EU treaties. And as the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits data retention (according to the ECJ)–there should be no alternative for the Commission, other than to act against member states not complying with this ban.

From the press release…

“We will fight in Swedish courts to the end but this is not about Bahnhof and our rights. It is about every citizen’s human rights. Bahnhof has always stood up for privacy of communications. We do not intend to retain traffic data about our customers and we are confident that we have the backing of the EU Charter and Court of Justice.”

Read the press release from Bahnhof and the 5 July-foundation here »

/ HAX

1

EU: Commission dodging data retention dispute

By on September 11, 2014 in Data Retention, EU, Privacy

EU member states closely associated with US/NSA mass surveillance (such as the UK and Sweden) have made it clear that they have no plans to end mass retention of data about all citizens all tele- and data communications. (The scheme was introduced with the EU data retention directive*.)

This will put the EU Commission between a rock and a hard place.

The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. One integrated part of the EU treaties is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. And the European Court of Justice has invalidated the EU directive on data retention–as it is in breach of human rights, according to the Charter.

So, what will the guardians of the treaties do?

For now, there has been nothing but silence from the Commission. Will it continue to dodge the issue, leaving the data retention issue to the member states?

The people in Berlaymont might want to. But I don’t think they can.

It ought to be irrelevant if the breach of the Charter is in an EU directive or in member states national legislation. The Charter trumps both.

This is the opinion of the lawyers at the European Council, the German secretary of justice, the Austrian supreme court and many others. The group of European data protection authorities–the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party–has given a statement along the same lines…

“…national data retention laws and practices should ensure that there is no bulk retention of all kinds of data and that, instead, data are subject to appropriate differentiation, limitation or exception.”

There you have it.

Blanket data retention is a big no-no.

Sooner or later, the European Commission will have to confront EU member states who persist in carrying out this form of mass surveillance.

/ HAX

* Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC.

1

Copyright lobby to back data retention

By on September 8, 2014 in Uncategorized

In Australia, the entertainment industry is strongly supporting data retention–to fight online piracy.

Content industry lobbying is globally coordinated, so we should expect something similar if this issue is to be reopened in the EU.

That might happen soon–as the European Court of Justice has suspended the EU data retention directive, finding that it violates human rights.

Some EU countries have declared blanket data retention now being an obsolete concept, while others like the UK and Sweden have no intentions to stop the practice.

This will lead to competition issues on the single European market, for the EU Commission to tackle. (Competition issues was the pretext for an EU directive in the first place.)

There is also a slight possibility that the Commission backs of–and leaves the data retention dilemma to the respective member states. That would move the fight from Brussels to 28 national parliaments.

But we can be pretty sure that there will be a battle, as the copyright lobby has locked on target.

Read more: How film studios want to use data retention to crack down on piracy »

/ HAX

0

Stallman on free software and free society

By on September 7, 2014 in Free Software, Hacktivism

Legendary founder of the Free Software movement Richard Stallman at TEDxGeneva 2014.

In this talk Stallman describes how nonfree programs give companies control of their users and what users can do in order to recover control over their computing.

0