Links

EU-US Privacy Shield adopted by the EU despite privacy flaws

The much criticized EU-U.S. Privacy Shield agreement concerning data protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the U.S. has – as expected – been approved by EU member states.

• Statement by Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Jourová on the occasion of the adoption by Member States of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield »

• Privacy Shield data pact gets European approval »

• EU-U.S. commercial data transfer pact clears final hurdle »

• New Privacy Shield Could Face Legal Challenge in Europe, Experts Say »

• Official: Privacy Shield dragged across finish line »

Most likely this agreement will end up in the European Court of Justice – as it is suffering from many of the same shortcomings as its predecessor, the Safe Harbour agreement. The latter was invalidated by the court for violating citizens rights to privacy.

Next up: EU e-Privacy Directive

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Directive for Law Enforcement Agencies (LEDP) have now been approved — after being watered down as the result of an unprecedented lobbying campaign.

Next up is the EU e-Privacy Directive. EDRi explains…

The e-Privacy Directive contains specific rules on data protection in the area of telecommunication in public electronic networks. It is hugely important, as it is the only EU legislation that regulates confidentiality of communications. (…)

Specifically, the ePrivacy Directive regulates aspects related to the right to confidentiality of communications and the right to freedom of expression.

Once again, we can expect a massive lobby campaign to weaken citizens rights.

To get up to date with what is at stake, read this blog post from EDRi:

• e-Privacy Directive revision: An analysis from the civil society »

/ HAX

EU to tax links to news

Germany and Spain introduced in their legislation what some people call a “Google tax”. The idea came from the publishers. They claimed the right to get an additional copyright, “ancillary copyright”, on any news that are published online. The idea of this “tax” (that is actually not a tax) was to charge the online news sites who publish news snippets, short extracts of news, such as Google News. Even if the main target of publishers was Google News, the laws affect other similar services, for example meneame in Spain. Ultimately it could even undermine the whole concept of links to information.

The result of this “Google tax” was a complete failure: Google decided to close Google News in Spain, while in Germany everyone except Google ended up paying the “tax”. Now, even after these clear failures, the European Commission (EC) is determined to make this error a European one; it’s considering implementing the ancillary copyright everywhere in the European Union (EU) – and on an even bigger scale than in Spain and Germany.

EDRi: The “Google tax”- not a tax and Google doesn’t pay »

The Economist makes a stand for Free Speech

[The] idea has spread that people and groups have a right not to be offended. This may sound innocuous. Politeness is a virtue, after all. But if I have a right not to be offended, that means someone must police what you say about me, or about the things I hold dear, such as my ethnic group, religion, or even political beliefs. Since offence is subjective, the power to police it is both vast and arbitrary. (…)

Opinion polls reveal that in many countries support for free speech is lukewarm and conditional. If words are upsetting, people would rather the government or some other authority made the speaker shut up. A group of Islamic countries are lobbying to make insulting religion a crime under international law. They have every reason to expect that they will succeed. (…)

So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.

The Economist: Curbs on free speech are growing tighter. It is time to speak out. »

Also read The Economists report: The muzzle grows tighter »

Mass surveillance, journalists and their sources

The threat of mass surveillance on reporting, particularly work of an investigative nature, may “all but eliminate” confidential sources and the value they bring to journalism.

This is one of the conclusion presented in a new academic research paper, “No more sources? The impact of Snowden’s revelations on journalists and their confidential sources”, published on 24 May and authored by Paul Lashmar, journalist and senior lecturer at University of Sussex. (…)

“Journalists need to be more outspoken about the impact of surveillance in preventing them from delivering their most important role, bringing to account government and the powerful when they are errant,” Lashmar wrote.

Journalism.co.uk: Research highlights the impact of the threat of surveillance on journalists and their sources »

How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers

Accusations that Pentagon retaliated against a whistleblower undermine argument that there were options for Snowden other than leaking to the media.

The Guardian: Snowden calls for whistleblower shield after claims by new Pentagon source »

The Guardian: How the Pentagon punished NSA whistleblowers »

UN and free speech

The United Nations Security Council wants a global “framework” for censoring the Internet, as well as for using government propaganda to “counter” what its apparatchiks call “online propaganda,” “hateful ideologies,” and “digital terrorism.” To that end, the UN Security Council this week ordered the UN “Counter-Terrorism Committee” — yes, that is a real bureaucracy — to draw up a plan by next year. From the Obama administration to the brutal Communist Chinese regime, everybody agreed that it was time for a UN-led crackdown on freedom of speech and thought online — all under the guise of fighting the transparently bogus terror war.

Zerohedge: UN Plots War On Free Speech To Stop “Extremism” Online »

What the Police really wants to know

For the first time, an ISP publishes statistics of what crimes the Police are investigating when requesting the release of internet subscriber identities. The so-called Data Retention, which is a governmental requirement to store data about everybody’s communications in order to use it against them in the future, was originally justified as necessary for fighting organized crime and terrorism – but is now being used against ordinary sharing of music and movies, according to the ISP.

“We want to publish these statistics in order to show the Police are violating people’s privacy and spending resources on pointless trifles”, says Jon Karlung, CEO of Bahnhof.

Falkvinge: For first time, an ISP reveals why Police demand internet subscriber identities: ordinary file sharing is the most investigated “crime” »