From: [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 17/11/2004 16:03
Subject: EDRi-news Digest, Vol 20, Issue 2
Send EDRi-news mailing list submissions to
[log in to unmask]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.edri.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/edri-news
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[log in to unmask]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[log in to unmask]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of EDRi-news digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 2.22, 17 November 2004
(EDRI-gram newsletter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:01:18 +0100 (CET)
From: "EDRI-gram newsletter" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 2.22, 17 November 2004
To: [log in to unmask]
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
============================================================
EDRI-gram
biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 2.22, 17 November 2004
============================================================
Contents
============================================================
1. Opinion EU privacy authorities on data retention
2. Poland blocks EU Software Patents directive
3. Dutch EU presidency launches new JHA programme
4. Conference report: 683 patents on the ethernet plug
5. UK NO2ID petition
6. European geographical data at a very high price?
7. Privacy International warns against phone camera's
8. Comments on Unesco convention cultural diversity
9. No take-down website Turkish consulate
10. German parliament debates filtering or blocking
11. ECJ: no legal protection for spin-off databases
12. Recommended reading: CCTV in Europe
13. Agenda
14. About
============================================================
1. Opinion EU privacy authorities on data retention
============================================================
The European Working Party of data protection authorities has finally
released an opinion on the proposed retention of communication traffic
data. The Working Party concludes the proposal is not acceptable within
the legal framework set by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. According to the Working Party data retention deserves the same
level of protection as interception. They cite jurisprudence from the
European Court of Human Rights that decrees that all interception of
telecommunications data must fulfil three fundamental criteria; a legal
basis, the need for the measure in a democratic society and conformity
with a legitimate and listed aim. The proposal sent to the European
Council on 28 April 2004 by France, Sweden, Ireland and the UK does not
meet any of these criteria, according to the data protection
commissioners.
On the necessity of the measure the Working Party remarks: "Not
everything
that might prove to be useful for law enforcement is desirable or can be
considered as a necessary measure in a democratic society, particularly
if
this leads to the systematic recording of all electronic communications.
The framework decision has not provided any persuasive arguments that
retention of traffic data to such a large-scale extent is the only
feasible option for combating crime or protecting national security."
With little more than 3 pages the Opinion is very brief, but should only
be considered a first step. "In view of the early stage of discussion
in
the relevant working party of the Council, this opinion has a
preliminary
character. The Working Party intends to reconsider the subject, on the
basis of a revised draft, at a later stage."
Such a revised draft has already been prepared and will be discussed in
the Council of ministers of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA Council) of 19
November. The document is still kept secret, but is listed in the index
of
the Consilium as document number 14190/1/04 REV 1 (Not publicly
available).
According to the annotated agenda of the upcoming JHA Council, the
debate
will focus on the difference between storing existing data, and a
possible
obligation to gather new kinds of data, specifically for law enforcement
purposes. "Considering the scope of the minimum set of data as proposed
in
Article 2(2) of the draft framework decision, it is of great importance
to
determine whether an obligation to retain data that is imposed on
providers should be restricted solely to data which are retained for
commercial or business purposes, or whether it should also cover data
which the providers possess as part of their own business operations."
If the obligation would only see to existing data, market parties with a
focus on privacy could decide to only store a minimum amount of data.
Logging visited URLs would be completely out of the question, since
there
is hardly any provider in the world that has a legitimate business
purpose
to gather those data outside of their own content-range.
Another issue that will be discussed in the upcoming Council is the need
of law enforcement authorities for systematic retention of the
information
about all incoming and outgoing communications of every citizen (in
stead
of concentrating on suspects of specific crimes). Both the Working
Party,
and earlier EDRI and Privacy International in their long paper against
mandatory data retention, underline the total lack of evidence, and the
conspicuous absence of law enforcement representatives from the
political
debate both nationally and at the European level.
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 9/2004 (15.11.2004)
http://www.bfd.bund.de/Presse/pm20041115b.pdf
EDRI and Privacy International paper against data retention (15.09.2004)
http://www.edri.org/campaigns/dataretention
Annotated agenda of the JHA Council on 19.11.2004
http://www.eu2004.nl/default.asp?CMS_TCP=tcpAsset&id=6BBDE6B5E7854DCF890
9F1BF6B2FF7D8X1X38644X09
Public register of Council documents (many 'Not Available')
http://register.consilium.eu.int/
============================================================
2. Poland blocks EU Software Patent directive
============================================================
The Polish government has announced today it can not support the
proposal
from the EU Council for a Software Patents directive, since it is too
vague, and leaves too much room for patents on pure software and
business
methods. This means there is no majority in the Council anymore to
formally ratify the agreement that was reached on 18 May 2004. On 1
November 2004 the voting-procedure in the EU Council was modified to
allow
the new Member States to have equal amounts of votes. With the Polish
'NO', the Council will have to re-negotiate the draft directive once
more
within the Council, before being able to present it to the European
Parliament for a second reading.
The text was already very problematic, due to growing political
differences between government representatives of member states and
members of different national parliaments. The official reason for the
long delay in the ratification of the Council position was the fact that
not all translations had been approved, but behind closed doors a lot of
lobbying has been going on.
According to spokesperson Jan Macek of FFII Poland, the Polish refusal
of
the Council position will give critical member states such as Austria,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Latvia, Denmark and Italy a chance to re-open the
debate on earlier modification proposals. These proposals would bring
the
draft directive much more in line with the intentions of the European
Parliament, but were declined by the Irish Presidency of the EU.
On 24 September 2003, the European Parliament voted against all
proposals
that would make software patentable and added additional safeguards,
such
as freedom of publication and interoperation. In January 2004, the Irish
Presidency of the Council proposed a text deleting most of the
amendments
introduced by the Parliament and lifting restrictions to the direct
patentability of computer programs, data structures and process
descriptions. Under this proposed compromise, 'computer-implemented'
algorithms and business methods, protocols and data formats would be
inventions in the sense of patent law, and the publication of a
functional
description of a patented idea, even for interoperability purposes,
would
constitute a patent infringement.
FFII, ISOC Poland and NoSoftwarePatents.com Joint Press Release
(17.11.2004)
http://kwiki.ffii.org/PolandDoesNotSupportCouncilVersionEn
Statement Polish government (last item on the page, 17.11.2004)
http://www.kprm.gov.pl/441_12649.htm
============================================================
3. Dutch EU presidency launches new JHA programme
============================================================
The Dutch presidency of the EU has launched a new 5 year programme for
Justice and Home Affairs. The previous five year plan, the Tampere
Programme, was launched under the Finnish presidency of the EU. The new
'Hague Programme' was discussed at the Brussels European Council on 4
and
5 November and will be presented by Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter
Balkenende to the European Parliament tomorrow, 18 November 2004.
The programme focuses on the current tendency of considering illegal
migration a 'cross-border problem', along with terrorism and organised
crime. Making reference to the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the U.S.,
and on 11 March 2004 in Madrid, it states 'a new urgency' for the
security
of the EU and its member states.
The means by which the EU Council hopes to achieve this security have
already been abundantly discussed at earlier dates; biometrics,
integration of databases, closer collaboration and operationalisation of
EuroJust and EuroPol.
On biometrics, the programme wants the EU to find 'a coherent approach
and
harmonised solutions' for travel documents, mainly for border control
purposes. This data are to be stored in a network of databases made up
from the present Schengen Information System (respectively SIS II), the
Visa Information System (VIS) and EURODAC, if the European Commission
finds these systems are sufficiently interoperable. The Commission is
currently preparing a report on these systems.
The institutions that use these databases, police forces and in
particular
Europol, are to become more networked and more operational. Europol will
work closer together with Eurojust, and it will publish, starting in
January 2006, yearly 'threat assessment reports' on serious forms of
crime, especially if organised cross-border. At the same time, national
police forces should enhance their bi- and multilateral co-operation.
Unfortunately, while promoting cross-border co-operation of authorities
and encouraging the creation and linking-up of transnational databases,
the Hague Programme fails to counterbalance these measures with adequate
civil rights, like better privacy protection, access to documents, more
rights for the European Parliament or better access for individuals to
the
European Justice system.
Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council (4-5.11.2004)
http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st14/st14292.en04.pdf (48 p.,
260 kB)
Statewatch analysis (prepared by Professor Steve Peers, University of
Essex, 05.11.2004)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/nov/hague-annotated-final.pdf
(Contribution by Andreas Dietl, EDRI EU Affairs Director)
============================================================
4. Conference report: 683 patents on the ethernet plug
============================================================
On 9 and 10 November 2004, the Foundation for a Free Information
Infrastructure (FFII) and MERIT, sponsored by OSI, CEA-PME and the
Greens/EFA, organised a conference in Brussels on the topic of
'Regulating
Knowledge: Costs, Risks, and Models of Innovation'. Its main theme was
the
economic consequences of software patents, focussing on economic
dynamics,
insurance risks, standardisation failures and institutional interests.
However, it also touched upon the democratic legitimacy of current
policy
making, as well as legal analysis of the current directive proposal on
the
patentability of 'computer-implemented inventions'.
Economic experts from the US such as Brian Kahin and Jim Bessen sketched
the economic background of the debate: why do we grant patents, do these
assumptions still hold true in an information economy, and how are
patents
used nowadays? According to them, patents are only used to protect about
15% of R&D, and while a different patent policy can increase this share,
at the same time it also affects the effectiveness of the other means of
protection. A balanced approach is obviously required.
Another problem is the increasing litigation, as well as its huge costs.
While showing the steadily climbing curve of the number of
patent-related
lawsuits filed in the US, Bessen asked the audience "Who wants to climb
this hill?" Kahin noted the fact that costs of patent litigation do not
scale-down well. Lawsuits over assets worth less than 1 million US
Dollar
cost more than those assets themselves.
The problems of software patents in open standards were also discussed
thoroughly. Simon Phipps presented the official Sun view on this issue:
it
should never be possible for patents to encumber interoperability, and
'reasonable and non-discriminatory' licenses are not a solution. The
fact
that these problems are not just theoretical was illustrated by Koen
Martens from the IETF Sender Policy Framework workgroup. Microsoft's
patents managed to largely waste more than a full year of work on this.
Insurance is often mentioned as a way for small and medium-sized
enterprises to cope with the high litigation costs of the patent system,
but Ian Lewis from Miller Insurance Services Ltd explained that offering
such insurances is not viable. He mentioned astonishing numbers like a
3.000% loss ratio for major insurance companies trying to offer
customers
products in this area.
Probably the most entertaining talk of the conference was given by David
Martin from M-CAM, a company specialised in assessing the values of
patent
portfolios and technology transfers. His thesis is that the patent
system
suffers from an immense integrity and accountability problem. He started
out by giving an example of real world economic consequences of this
fact:
large US companies are missing out on huge Chinese contracts, because
they
previously licensed worthless patents to Chinese companies (who in turn
were previously accused of 'stealing' that 'intellectual property').
Another striking example was the ethernet plug. "The degrees of freedom
in
a plug, Ladies and Gentlemen, are two. You've got the insulative
surface,
you've got the prongs. That's two degrees of freedom. The third degree
of
freedom is where you shove it". According to Martin, these two degrees
of
freedom are covered by a grand total of 683 patents. He concluded his
talk
with the immortal words that "If we don't actually confront the
integrity
problem, which says that we are stimulated to issue garbage [..], we're
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic."
Many other influential speakers, both from the US and from Europe,
explained their view on the (software) patents issue. The economic
impact
was analysed using both top-down and bottom-up approaches. The Grokline
initiative was presented, an open, community-based, collaborative
research
project on the history of the relationship between patent law and
software
development. Its goal is to assess whether patent law, as actually
applied, has recognised true innovation. Wendy Seltzer from EFF stressed
the consequences for online information availability. The merits of the
various directive proposals were discussed. And most of all the need was
stressed for considering patent policy as part of economic policy
making,
instead of handling it as a separate entity that stands on its own.
With many renowned speakers, live audio streaming and a large and
interested audience, the conference was a great success.
Program, slides and audio recordings of the panel discussions
(9-10.11.2004)
http://eu.ffii.org/sections/bxl0411/program/
Grokline patent project
http://grokline.net
(Contribution by Jonas Maebe, board member FFII and conference
co-organiser)
============================================================
5. UK NO2ID e-petition
============================================================
A large group of UK-based rights organisations, including EDRI-member
FIPR
and Privacy International, has launched a formal e-petition against
governmental plans to introduce ID-cards. The petition (open to UK
residents only) closes at 19 November, timed to precede the speech of
the
Queen on 23 November 2004. Almost 1.000 individuals have endorsed the
petition, that calls on the Prime Minister and the government to
immediately cease all further development of, and legislation for,
national identity cards and the National Identity Register.
The petition says: "We believe the proposals constitute an attack on
individual rights and freedoms. We believe they will lead to
institutional
discrimination and to unfair and unlawful denial of benefits and
services.
We believe the proposals will lead to an increase in state control and
surveillance over the individual, and that they will create an
unacceptable imposition on every citizen."
Popular support for ID-cards is rapidly dropping. According to
statistics
from the Home Office, this summer only 31% of the public was in favour,
but a considerably higher 48% was against. This won't stop the
government
from introducing it rapidly, in the Queen's speech. Mark Littlewood,
National Co-ordinator of the NO2ID coalition, says: "Rumour has it that
Tony Blair and David Blunkett will try to slip their ID card proposal in
through the back door by losing it in the detail of anti-crime,
anti-terrorist legislation."
Petition against ID-card
http://www.no2id-petition.net
Home office statistics (page 12, October 2004)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/id_summary_doc_3.pdf
Analysis Privacy International 'UK ID Card moving forward despite
significant opposition' (27.10.2004)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-79542&h
eadline=UK+ID+Card+moving+forward+despite+significant+opposition
============================================================
6. European geographical data at a very high price?
============================================================
Advocates of open source tools that use geographical data (GIS) are
concerned about a new directive proposed by the European Commission on
the
use of governmental geospatial data. The INSPIRE Directive, adopted by
the
Commission in July 2004, aims to establish a spatial information
infrastructure in Europe. It covers 30 broad types of data, such as (the
location and the 3D descriptors of) buildings, forests, rivers,
mountains,
transport networks, all kinds of territorial definitions (names,
postcodes, population and distribution of species) and all kinds of
environmental indicators, such as occurrence of epidemics, pollution
etc.
Critics say the consultation process has been unrepresentative, and fear
that the proposed directive gives too much power to government data
collection and licensing agencies. They argue that the directive imposes
unnecessary costs and that the end result will benefit government
agencies, rather than citizens or the industry. Geographic data should
be
made available free of licensing costs, they argue, for example to help
develop grassroots level campaigns and election monitoring enhanced with
geographic data and maps. Currently, in the UK for example, it costs
almost 3.000 euro per year to license a simple postcode look-up service.
Spatial data forms a core high-value part of the information produced by
the public sector. Though the proposed directive contains a
non-prejudice
clause to Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector
information,
it seems to undermine its core principles. This 2003 Directive contains
rules on transparency, standard and non-exclusive licences, appeal
provisions, an upper limit for charging, etc. and is currently being
implemented by member states. In contrast, the INSPIRE Directive gives
responsibility to an expert group, together with Member States, to set a
common geospatial data licensing and cost policy and to provide
e-commerce
services for 'data availability'.
The rapporteur from the European Parliament for this Directive will be
the
Belgian christian-democrat Mme Frederika Brepoels (EPP-ED), in the
Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. According to
the
Legislative Observatory from the European Parliament, there will only be
1
reading by Parliament, and the Committee is expected to adopt its
opinion
on 15 March 2005.
INSPIRE
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/geo/
Critical analysis of the INSPIRE Directive
http://space.frot.org/docs/inspire_directive.html
European Commission pages on public sector information
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm
ePSINet, European Public Sector Information Network
http://www.epsigate.org/
(Thanks to Teresa Hackett, Ireland)
============================================================
7. Privacy International warns against phone camera's
============================================================
Privacy International is calling on all manufacturers of phone camera's
to
equip the devices with a default flash, to alert people that their
picture
is taken. PI believes this measure is necessary to avoid endemic privacy
abuse. Camera phones are increasingly used to take intimate and private
images without consent, often resulting in embarrassment and harm to
relationships. Such images can also be used as material for blackmail,
revenge and harassment.
Numerous countries have pursued restrictive measures. Only Saudi Arabia
created a complete ban on the devices, other countries such as
Australia,
Taiwan, the United States, the UK and Canada have adopted specific rules
to prevent the use in specific places such as changing rooms, swimming
pools and schools. The Ministry of Information and Communication of
Korea
decided last year to oblige the manufacturers to make sure the devices
give a mandatory beep of at least 65 decibel whenever a picture is
taken.
According to Privacy International, sound warnings, embedded by some
manufacturers, won't really stop the problem, because the feature can be
disabled or lightly overheard in a noisy environment. On the other hand,
a
mandatory flash wouldn't damage the picture, since the lens aperture can
be regulated by an inbuilt light meter.
Director Simon Davies points out that the threats from phone cameras are
'substantively greater' than those arising from conventional
photography.
"The ability to covertly capture images and then instantly transmit
those
images removes any safeguard for the victim", he warns.
On Monday 15 November, the international consumer electronics
association,
CEA, issued a rather weak phone camera etiquette, advising users to
respect other people's privacy. According to most manufacturers
(excluding
Nokia, not a member of this association) "Camera phones should not be
used
in public areas considered "private" by those who use them, for example:
bathrooms, changing rooms, and gym locker rooms." So much for sauna's,
swimming pools and beaches, it seems.
Press release Privacy International (16.11.2004)
http://www.privacyinternational.org/mobilephonewarning
Think before you click - campaign CEA (15.11.2004)
http://www.ce.org/press_room/press_release_detail.asp?id=10610
============================================================
8. Comments on Unesco convention on cultural diversity
============================================================
The Unesco is working on a draft convention on cultural diversity, the
Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and
Artistic Expressions. The draft contains many references to copyright,
intellectual property rights and access to information. On 15 November
2004 the campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society
(CRIS) has presented a critical paper to the Unesco delegates, endorsed
by
many EDRI-members and other civil rights organisations.
The Unesco convention was originally designed to ensure that culture, in
the age of globalized culture industries, is not reduced to a commodity.
Its aim is to allow each country to implement cultural, media, and
communications policies that foster cultural diversity. However, some
governments have proposed dangerous revisions that would transform the
draft Convention into an instrument that expands corporate ownership of
culture. CRIS points out that the convention must not be made
subordinate
to existing or future trade agreements. Secondly, it should be designed
to
not only protect diversity of national and regional cultural industries,
but to protect the cultural diversity and the communication rights of
all
peoples.
Thirdly, the convention must balance any references to the protection of
intellectual property rights with reference to protection of the
cultural
commons. Otherwise, references to intellectual property rights should be
removed altogether.
Unesco draft convention
http://www.unesco.org/culture
CRIS comments
http://www.mediatrademonitor.org/cris-unesco.php
============================================================
9. No take-down website Turkish consulate
============================================================
On 15 November a Paris court (Tribunal de Grand Instance) rejected a
demand from the Comiti de Difense de la Cause Arminienne (CDCA) to
take-down a website from the Turkish consulate in France. The Turkish
consul was accused by the CDCA of denying the 1915 genocide on
Armenians.
Both the complaint against hosting provider Wanadoo as well as the
complaint against the Turkish consul failed.
The Court found that no provision in the French law specifically
considers
the denial of the Armenian genocide illegal, not as part of the general
penal code provisions on genocide-denial, nor as a result of the
specific
French law from 2001 acknowledging the existence of the genocide of the
Armenians.
Regarding the complaint against the Turkish consul, the Court concluded
he
was protected by diplomatic immunity, following the Vienna Convention of
1963. Therefore the complaint against him was found irrelevant.
The CDCA is considering an appeal to the decision. Reporters Without
Borders point out in a press release issued on 17 November that this
case
is the first to be heard under the new legal regime for provider
liability
defined in the Loi sur la Confiance dans l'iconomie numirique (LEN).
This
law demands content has to be 'manifestly unlawful' in order for a
provider to risk liability. On 13 June 2004 the French Constitutional
Council modified the LEN, after huge protests from numerous digital
rights
organisations, from 'apparently' to 'manifestly' unlawful. Under French
jurisprudence only very specific content can be considered 'manifestly
illegal', like (holocaust) denial, pedophile images and war-crime
apologies.
Still, the definition causes many problems in practice, according to
RSF.
The Paris court only decided the website from the Turkish consulate
wasn't
'manifestly' unlawful after studying 2 French legal texts and 3
international texts.
CDCA press release (15.11.2004)
http://www.cdca.asso.fr/s/detail.php?r=0&&id=197
RSF press release (in French and English, 17.11.2004)
http://www.internet.rsf.org
EDRI-gram 2.21 'Armenian group demands take down website Turkish
consulate' (03.11.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.21/takedown
(Thanks to Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
============================================================
10. German parliament debates filtering or blocking
============================================================
On 12 November, the German Lower House (Bundestag) debated in plenary on
the merits of individual filtering or state-ordered blocking of illegal
and harmful content. Germany is the only country in Western Europe
(besides Switzerland) were governmental blocking-orders were issued to
providers to prevent internet users from accessing information deemed
illegal or indecent. Over 80 internet providers in Nordrein-Westfalen
were
ordered early in 2002 by the district government of Dusseldorf to block
access to 4 foreign websites with neo-nazi content. Meanwhile, 2 of the
4
websites have been dropped from the blocking-order, including the
distasteful, but certainly not illegal website rotten.com. More
recently,
the anti-censorship activist Alvar Freude was brought to court by the
same
regional government of Dusseldorf for posting hyper-links to censored
websites with radical right-wing content on his website.
Though all parties seemed to agree that blocking orders are a very bad
solution, the Red-Green government coalition rejected a motion from the
Liberal FDP that would stop any blocking-orders and in stead promote
end-user filtering, international agreements and self-regulatory
measures
by the industry. According to a report in the German e-zine Heise, it
was
a purely party-political decision to vote against the motion. The
CDU-representative also agreed in the debate that any call for
governmental blocking-orders would be completely out of proportion. "A
free society with such wide-reaching technical possibilities also
demands
responsibility of individuals and of the industry," said
Heinrich-Wilhelm
Ronsvhr, according to Heise.
On 11 April 2002 the European Parliament unanimously adopted a
declaration
against the use of 'blocking' as a way of regulating content on the
Internet. 460 MEP's were in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions. In its
adoption of the report on the protection of minors and human dignity,
parliament expressed concern "that recent decisions or strategies to
block
access to certain websites may result in the fragmentation of Internet
access or the denial of access to legitimate content and therefore is
not
an effective European solution for combating illegal and harmful
Internet
content."
The report on the new Safer Internet Plus Programme, adopted unanimously
by the Europarl Committee on Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on
16 November 2004, takes this view one step further. Blocking is not even
considered an option, but filtering is not the holy grail either. From a
strong focus on end-user empowerment the report stresses the need to
take
privacy principles into account when using filter programs. Also, in
stead
of financing the development of filter tools, LIBE wishes to dedicate
funding to the performance and transparency of filter technologies.
Adding
to the transparency of the hotline system, the report demands that "the
number and kind of webpages withdrawn by internet service providers as a
result of information provided by the hotlines should be made public if
possible." Also, internet providers are encouraged to handle Notice and
Take Down requests in a transparent and conscientious matter.
Finally, the report adds an important dimension to the debate about
harmful content. "It would be desirable to try to take account of the
possible effect of new technologies, on their safe use by children when
they are being developed, instead of trying to deal with any
consequences
of the new technologies after they have been devised. (...) However, it
should be taken into account that not every product developed for the
online world is intended for use by children."
Heise, 'Bundestag streitet |ber Web-Sperrungen und Filter' (12.11.2004)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/53214
LIBE report on Safer Internet Plus Programme 2005-2008, 2004/0023(COD)
(16.11.2004)
http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/PR/542/542475/54
2475en.pdf
============================================================
11. ECJ: no legal protection for spin-off databases
============================================================
The European Court of Justice has decided to diminish the legal
protection
of so called 'spin-off' databases under the Database Directive
1996/9/EC.
In order to claim 'sui generis' database protection, a substantial
investment must be made "in seeking, collecting, verifying and
presenting
existing materials". The resources used to create the materials which
make
up the database can _not_ be counted as substantial investment. In other
words; if a database is a logical spin-off of your main activity, the
data
cannot be protected against use by third parties. These verdicts
juxtapose
the opinion of the Advocate General, issued on 8 June 2004.
The parties involved in the 4 cases are the British Horseracing Board
(BRB) versus William Hill and Fixtures Marketing Ltd (football fixture
lists) versus football pools operators in Finland, Sweden and Greece.
Advocate General Stix-Hackl found that the database rights of the
plaintiffs (BRB and Fixtures Marketing) were infringed by the
bookmakers.
In the case of football fixture lists the Court finds it does not
require
any particular effort on the part of the professional leagues to make up
such a list. "Those activities are indivisibly linked to the creation of
those data, in which the leagues participate directly as those
responsible
for the organisation of football league fixtures."
In the case of the horse races, the Court similarly acknowledges the
database right of the British Horseracing Board, but finds William Hill
only uses insubstantial parts, since they only use parts of the database
that do not require separate substantial investments.
Press release Curia verdict in cases C-46/02, C-203/02, C-338/02 and
C-444/02 (09.11.2004)
http://www.curia.eu.int/en/actu/communiques/cp04/aff/cp040089en.pdf
The British Horseracing Board v William Hill (09.11.2004)
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79958890C19020
203&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET&where=()
EDRI-gram 2.15 'Opinion European Court of Justice: perpetual rights for
databases' (04.08.2004)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number215/databases
============================================================
12. Recommended reading: CCTV in Europe
============================================================
The magazine 'Surveillance & Society' has a special double issue online
about the politics and practice of CCTV. Under the title 'The Politics
of
CCTV in Europe and Beyond' the magazine examines the extraordinarily
fast
growth of closed circuit television (CCTV) in western societies. Papers
on
regulation and governance and a large number of case studies describe
various aspects of the the growth in the use of CCTV, from its use in
the
private sector, public spaces, large scale 'open street' CCTV and
gradually its ubiquitous presence. The editors question the motives to
implement CCTV on such a large scale: "The extent to which such measures
do anything to protect from further tragedies is questionable, but
largely
irrelevant. For politicians, there is a need to be seen to be doing
something."
Surveillance & Society: The Politics of CCTV in Europe and Beyond
(edited by Clive Norris, Mike McCahill and David Wood)
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/cctv.htm
============================================================
13. Agenda
============================================================
18-20 November 2004, Berlin, Germany
UN ICT Task Force Meeting and Global Forum on Digital Development
The UN ICT Task Force will have its seventh meeting in Berlin on 19 and
20 November 2004. The first one and a half days will consist of a Global
Forum on 'Promoting an enabling environment for digital development'
that
is open to qualified civil society experts. Civil society groups are
organising a series of open workshops and events around the Task Force
meeting. Most of them will take place on 18 November.
UN ICT Task Force website and registration info
http://www.unicttaskforce.org
Civil Society events
http://www.worldsummit2005.org
25 November 2004, Budapest, Hungary
Fourth annual Big Brother Awards ceremony in Hungary
http://www.bigbrotherawards.hu/
14 January 2005, Athens, Greece
ePSINet Policy Conference on re-use of Public Sector Information in
Europe. The aim of the conference is to provide a forum for policy
makers,
public content providers, re-users and international experts to discuss
the prospects for adding value through commercial exploitation of public
sector information. The conference will also act as a progress check on
the early implementation of the European Directive on PSI re-use,
published late in 2003, and discuss the future agenda. Registration is
free for the first 150 participants.
http://www.epsigate.org/conf.htm
21 January 2005, Paris, France, Big Brother Awards
The organising committee of the French Big Brother Awards is inviting
the
public to nominate people, institutions and governments that have
excelled
in violating privacy and enhancing control. The French have opened a new
category, for nominations in the 'Novlang/Newspeak Award', dedicated to
public manipulation of the masses aimed at making people docile to
control, surveillance, tagging and tracing their private lives.
Public nominations French Big Brother Awards
http://candidats.bigbrotherawards.eu.org/
12-15 April 2005, Seattle, USA, CFP 2005
The program committee of the annual Computer, Freedom, Privacy
Conference
is accepting proposals for conference sessions and speakers for CFP2005.
The deadline for submissions is 31 December 2004. The conference will be
held in the Westin Hotel in Seattle, Washington.
http://www.cfp2005.org
============================================================
14. About
============================================================
EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
Currently EDRI has 17 members from 11 European countries. European
Digital
Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession
countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the
EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content or agenda-tips
are
most welcome.
Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
Newsletter editor: Sjoera Nas <[log in to unmask]>
Information about EDRI and its members:
http://www.edri.org/
- EDRI-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
unsubscribe by e-mail
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: unsubscribe
- EDRI-gram in Russian, Ukrainian and Italian
EDRI-gram is also available in Russian, Ukrainian and Italian, a few
days
after the English edition. The contents are the same.
Translations are provided by Sergei Smirnov, Human Rights Network,
Russia;
Privacy Ukraine and autistici.org, Italy
The EDRI-gram in Russian can be read on-line via
http://www.hro.org/editions/edri/
The EDRI-gram in Ukrainian can be read on-line via
http://www.internetrights.org.ua/index.php?page=edri-gram
The EDRI-gram in Italian can be read on-line via
http://www.autistici.org/edrigram/
- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/edrigram
- Help
Please ask <[log in to unmask]> if you have any problems with subscribing or
unsubscribing.
============================================================
Publication of this newsletter is made possible by a grant from
the Open Society Institute (OSI).
============================================================
End of EDRi-news Digest, Vol 20, Issue 2
****************************************
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
to be clean.
The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
Systems and Services, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
