21 Feb 2019

Google and IAB: Knowingly enabling intrusive profiling

By Yannic Blaschke

On 28 January, EDRi member Panoptykon joined a complaint against Google and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) in Poland, after it had become clear that the advertising categories provided by these entities are enabling the processing of extremely sensitive data of European citizens. On 20 February, new evidence was published proving that the IAB was all along aware of the incompatibility of its systems with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The background of the complaints

Besides Panoptykon’s complaint, proceedings have been launched with the national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) in Ireland by Johnny Ryan of the browser company Brave, and in the United Kingdom by Jim Killock of EDRi member Open Rights Group (ORG), and by Michael Veale of University College London. The complainants agree that the “Real-Time Bidding” (RTB) standards that Google and the IAB define for the online advertising auction industry infringe Article 1(5)f of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), because they broadcast highly sensitive personal data to thousands of companies. Bid requests are necessary in order to solicit bids from advertisers for the opportunity to show an ad to a person. However, the complainants argue that this can be accomplished safely with non-personal data. Instead, the IAB and Google standards permit labels such as “cancer”, “sexual health” (IAB), “substance abuse”, “eating disorder”, “right-” and “left-wing politics” (Google) to be broadcast along with unique identifiers and other personal data in bid requests. These data are protected as “special category” personal data in Article 9 of the GDPR.

IAB Europe’s response has been that it merely provides a technical standard, which might or might not be used by their members to violate privacy laws. Their statement was immediately countered by the complainants, who said that the IAB cannot claim to be a mere bystander because it organises and encourages a system through which personal data is broadcast billions of times a day without adequate security. The online tracking industry has attracted heavy criticism from civil rights groups in the past for its lobbying against privacy enhancing technologies, for instance regarding their huge influence in the ePrivacy Regulation and in the context of the implementation of the Do Not Track Signal.

The AdTech Lobby’s myths that not even they themselves believe

On 20 February, new evidence was published proving that not even the IAB is believing their public statements regarding the GDPR compliance of their RTB system. In the e-mails disclosed in a freedom of information request, a document was attached admitting that it is “technically impossible for the user to have prior information about every data controller involved in a real-time bidding (RTB) scenario” and that that would seem, “at least prima facie, to be incompatible with consent under GDPR”. Furthermore, the documents acknowledge that there is no technical way of limiting the ways in which personal data is used and shared after broadcasting it to thousands of vendors. This confession is further aggravated by the concrete technical examples of how sensitive the data shared through the system can be, and to what extent pseudonymisation (meaning data that is kept separate from identifiable elements) is lacking in daily practice.

The evidence presented comes with a surprising openness by the AdTech Industry about its likely lack of compliance with the GDPR. However, the argument that “only” organising the processing of personal data does not bring any responsibility for the subsequent uses of the system appeared grossly over-simplistic from the start, looking at European case law. Two recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) suggest that the IAB’s counter argument will not hold: Wirtschaftsakademie and Tietosuojavaltuutettu.

Tietosuojavaltuutettu is particularly relevant to the question of Google’s and IAB’s responsibilities for the use of their RTB standards: the Court ruled that the global Jehova’s witnesses community is a joint controller of data processed solely by local member preachers, by virtue of its role as organiser and promoter of these activities. Clearly, this has an implication for the IAB and Google.

It is difficult to foresee an exact timeline for the complaint procedures, but the authorities are expected to act as soon as possible. After all, the complaint concerns the core mechanism that enables the secretive profiling of every single person that sets their foot online and the tracking of their private life.

Empowered through GDPR (and hopefully, soon, also by an ePrivacy Regulation), citizens and civil society now have the opportunity to reject the collection, broadcasting and ultimately capitalisation of the most private details of their lives. Surveillance Capitalism is starting to show signs of crumbling.

Panoptykon files complaints against Google and IAB (28.01.2019)

Complaints: Google infringes GDPR’s informed consent principle (05.12.2018)

How the online tracking industry “informs” policy makers (12.09.2018)

Five things the online tracking industry gets wrong (13.09.2017)

(Contribution by Yannic Blaschke, EDRi intern)


21 Feb 2019

Safeguarding fundamental rights in the new Cybercrime Protocol


On 20 February, European Digital Rights (EDRi), along with ten civil society organisations from across the globe, responded to a public consultation on the Council of Europe’s Second Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime (also known as the Budapest Convention).

The draft Protocol aims to establish international rules for cross-border access to personal data by law enforcement authorities from Council of Europe member countries. The Council’s Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) sought contributions from stakeholders in particular on provisions relating to emergency mutual assistance as well as the languages to be used in such requests. Second Protocol is to be adopted by Parties to the Convention by December 2019.

EDRi and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) coordinated a joint submission by civil society organisations to ensure that such emergency procedures would not be abused to circumvent legal safeguards protecting fundamental rights in the context of cross-border access to personal data. Our submission also upholds the right to an effective remedy by requiring the request to be translated into the language of the person whose data is being sought, so he or she can challenge the measure.

You can read the submission here: https://edri.org/files/consultation_emergency_languages_20190220.pdf

Cross-border access to data has to respect human rights principles (20.09.2017)

Cross-border access to data: EDRi delivers international NGO position to Council of Europe (18.09.2017)

Access to e-evidence: Inevitable sacrifice of our right to privacy?

Budapest Convention – the Convention on Cybercrime of the Council of Europe

2019: Important consultations for your Digital Rights!


20 Feb 2019

FRA and EDPS: Terrorist Content Regulation requires improvement for fundamental rights


On 12 February 2019, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) published an Opinion regarding the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online. In the same day, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) submitted its comments on the topic to the responsible committee in the European Parliament. These two texts complement EDRi’s analysis and the previous Report prepared by three UN Special Rapporteurs on the proposal.

FRA: Substantial threats for freedom of expression

In its Opinion, FRA structures its criticism around four main areas.

First, it calls to improve the definition of “terrorist content”. The Opinion highlights the need to add to this definition the concept of “incitement” or giving specific instructions to commit terrorist offences. The definition of such instructions should be aligned with the Terrorism Directive and specific actions such as “providing specific instructions on how to prepare explosives or firearms”. Further, the text calls to limit the proposal to content disseminated to the public and to exclude from the Regulation’s scope certain forms of expression, such as content that relates to educational, journalistic, artistic or research purposes.

Second, FRA calls to ensure that fundamental rights safeguards are in place through “effective judicial supervision”. Currently, there is no mention in the proposal of any “independent judicial authority in the adoption or prior to the execution of the removal order”. FRA also reminds of the need to avoid a disproportionate impact on the freedom to conduct a business when having to react to notices for removals of terrorist content in a very short time-frame (up to one hour in the original proposal). FRA suggests instead a reaction time of 24 hours from the receipt of the removal order. Regarding safeguards in cross-border removal orders, the Opinion calls to ensure that the authorities of the Member State where the content is hosted are “empowered to review the removal order in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that fundamental rights are impacted within its own jurisdiction.” FRA thus encourages the EU legislator to require a notification by the issuing Member State to the host Member State – in addition to the notification to the hosting service provider – when the removal order is issued.

Third, FRA states that the proposal “does not sufficiently justify the necessity of introducing the mechanism of referrals”, and suggests to distinguish between content needing a removal order and content requiring a referral.

Fourth, the Opinion states that the proposed proactive measures of the Regulation come very close to a general monitoring obligation. This is not only prohibited by Article 14 of the EU’s eCommerce Directive, but also generally incompatible with individuals’ right to freedom of expression under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union. Thus, FRA proposes to delete from the Regulation text the obligation for Hosting Service Providers’ (HSPs) to introduce proactive measures.

EDPS: Concerns for the Regulation’s data retention and GDPR compliance

While the EDPS issued similar concerns regarding the definition of terrorist content and the “one hour rule”, it also issued some targeted comments on the concerns surrounding potentially privacy intrusive elements of the Regulation proposal.

In the Regulation proposal, Hosting Service Providers’ have obligations to retain data of supposed terrorist content that they delete or disable access to on their platform. The EDPS presents substantive doubts whether such obligations would be compliant with case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This opinion was based on the assessment that the proposed measures, in similarity to the Data Retention Directive that was struck down by the CJEU in 2014, do not lay down specific criteria regarding the time period and access and use limitations for the retained data. The EDPS is further not convinced of the overall usefulness of data retention measures in the Terrorist Content Regulation, given that the text obliges HSPs to promptly inform the competent law enforcement authorities of any evidence regarding terrorist offences.

On the proposal’s foreseen proactive measures, the EDPS stated that automated tools for recognising and removing content would likely fall under Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which regulates citizens’ rights in automated decision making and profiling activities. This would, in turn, require more substantive safeguards than the ones provided in the Commission’s proposal, including case-specific information to the data subject, understandable information about how the decision was reached, and the right to obtain human intervention in any case.

The observations of the EU’s most important fundamental rights institutions feed into a steady stream of criticism of the proposal. These represent noteworthy positions for policy makers in the legislator institutions, particularly in the European Parliament’s LIBE, CULT and IMCO committees that are currently adopting their positions. It is now more evident than ever that the proposed Terrorist Content Regulation needs substantive reform to live up to the Union’s values, and to safeguard the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens.

Read more:

EDRi Recommendations for the European Parliament’s Draft Report on the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (December 2018)

All Cops Are Blind? Context in terrorist content online (13.02.2019)

Terrorist Content: LIBE Rapporteur’s Draft Report lacks ambition (25.01.2019)

CULT: Fundamental rights missing in the Terrorist Content Regulation (21.01.2019)

Terrorist Content: IMCO draft Opinion sets the stage right for EP (18.01.2019)

(Contribution by Diego Naranjo and Yannic Blaschke)


20 Feb 2019

Upload filters: Status of the copyright discussions and next steps


The proposal for a new copyright Directive was originally aimed at modernising the copyright framework. However, it has fallen short of the initial expectations. Instead, the current proposal for the Directive text forces the implementation of upload filters and brings only minor improvements in other areas. In effect, the proposal could lead to unlawful restrictions on freedom of speech and reduce access to knowledge.

Read below a brief summary of the most significant developments in the Copyright reform.

September 2016 – EU Commission proposal

After years of public consultations (see here and here), the European Commission published a disappointing proposal in September 2016. European Digital Rights analysed the text.

June 2018 – EU Parliament Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) Report

Following months of intense debates and detailed analysis, the Report in the European Parliament lead Committee – Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) – ignored key recommendations from the Committees on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Civil Liberties (LIBE). By doing so, the JURI Committee missed the historic opportunity to bring a workable compromise on the table.

Thanks to massive actions by civil society, the European Parliament denied JURI a mandate to negotiate the proposed text on behalf of the entire Parliament in the trilogues between the EU institutions. With JURI’s proposal threatening open internet and citizens’ right to freedom of expression, the text was sent back to the drawing board and was opened for re-drafting.

September 2018 – European Parliament plenary vote / Trilogue mandate

The European Parliament ignored attempts from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Catherine Stihler, Julia Reda and Marietje Schaake to bring a better version to Article 13. After presenting a “reformed text” which contained implicit upload filters, the leading JURI Committee MEP Axel Voss managed to push the European Parliament (in plenary) to vote in favour of them. The new text was passed with a relatively small number of votes (366 for, 297 against).

October 2018 – Start of the trilogues

The European Parliament entered trilogues, the closed-door negotiations with the Council of the European Union, and the EU Commission.

14 February 2019 – End of trilogues: Upload filters strike back

On 14 February 2019, the trilogue negotiations predictably concluded an agreement of the final copyright Directive text that included Article 13’s upload filters. The agreement echoed the position of the two most powerful states, France and Germany, supported by the music industry. The text largely ignored the concerns of the public, internet luminaries, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, civil society organisations, programmers, and academics.

14 February 2019 – “mob and bots”

The European Commission celebrated the trilogue text and called the adversaries to Article 13 and Article 11 “mob and bots”. The blog was harshly criticised, and thousands of people reacted by protests. The European Commission deleted the blogpost afterwards, justifying the deletion by saying that it had been “misunderstood”.

20 February 2019 – COREPER approval of the text agreed during trilogues

The Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER 1) approved the text agreed during trilogues.

What NEXT?

26 February 2019 – JURI Committee votes on trilogue text

It is expected that the JURI Committee will endorse the negotiated text in the trilogues.

15-18 April 2019 (TBC) – Final vote in the EU Parliament’s plenary

All 750 MEPs will vote on the entire Copyright Directive text. This will be a “Yes / No” vote.

Do you want to stop the #CensorshipMachine? Join us and #SaveYourInternet!

See the full inforgraphic here: https://edri.org/files/copyright/copyright_timeline_20190220.pdf

19 Feb 2019

EDRi’s Press Review 2018


During the past year, our work to defend citizens’ rights and freedoms online has gained an impressive visibility – we counted more than three hundred mentions! – in European and international media. Below, you can find our press review 2018.


01/01 EU i linedans mellem desinformation og censur (Mandag Morgen)
10/01 Does Software Piracy Hurt Sales? The $431,000 Buried EU Study Says ‘No’ (PC Steps)
16/01 O francês Macron poderá vencer a guerra contra as fake news? (Veja)
19/01 El RGDP: nueva normativa europea a partir de 2018 (1&1Digital Guide )
20/01 GDPR: Harmonization or Fragmentation? Applicable Law Problems in EU Data Protection Law (Berkley Technology Law Journal)
22/01 Šmírování zuby nehty (České noviny)
22/01 Kampf gegen Hate SpeechDie EU setzt weiterhin auf Freiwilligkeit (Deutschlandfunk)
23/01 Youtube scannt “hunderte Jahre” Videomaterial am Tag (Süddeutsche Zeitung)
31/01 Net neutrality in Europe: will the US case change the way our telecom suppliers provide internet services? (EU Logos)


03/02 Neutralité du net : “Certains voudraient faire d’internet un nouveau minitel” (Sciences et Avenir)
09/02 Commission lobbies for police access to website owners list (Euractiv)
12/02 Logan Paul: Following the YouTube controversy, should social media have the same regulations as journalism? (Independent)
13/02 EU-Kommission will Plattformen die Löschung von illegalen Inhalten ohne Netz und doppeltem Boden empfehlen (Netzpolitik.org)
13/02 Tutto quello che Tinder sa di te. Da leggere prima di San Valentino (Cyber Security)
13/02 Bruxelles passe à la vitesse supérieure contre les contenus illégaux en ligne (document) (Contexte)
14/02 Auf Facebook kommt in Europa eine Lawine an Verfahren zu (Radio fm4)
14/02 Germany: Flawed Social Media Law (No Comment Diary)
14/02 EU adds pressure on online platforms with plan for fast removal of terrorist content (EURACTIV)
14/02 L’UE durcit le ton sur les contenus à caractère terroriste en ligne (EURACTIV.fr)
14/02 Germany: Flawed Social Media Law (World Justice News)
14/02 Dating online, Garante Ue Buttarelli ‘L’uso dei nostri dati non è chiaro’ (Privacy Italia)
15/02 Netizen Report: In Leaked Docs, European Commission Says Internet Companies Should Self-Regulate on Harmful Speech (Slate)
15/02 Commission suggestions for speeding up removal of illegal online content in keeping with the voluntary approach (Agence Europe)
15/02 Europa will mehr löschen lassen (Spiegel)
15/02 EU-Kommission: Nutzer können gegen Facebook & Co in ihrem Herkunftsland klagen (HeiseOnline)
15/02 Leak: Online-Plattformen sollen illegale Inhalte innerhalb einer Stunde löschen (EurActive)
16/02 Tweets of the Week: Dutch minister resigns, Boris Johnson’s credibility, and Bad Valentines (EURACTIV)
16/02 De la neutralité du net à celle des terminaux (Le Monde)
18/02 «Echaríamos a todo gobierno que nos pidiera los datos que le damos a Facebook» (El Correo)
18/02 Terror als Vorwand der EU-Kommission für Copyrightfilter (Radio fm4)
17/02 Netzpolitischer Wochenrückblick KW7: Daten minimieren mal anders (Netzpolitik)
19/02 Keine Ent­schä­d­i­gungs­re­ge­lung für Ato­m­aus­s­tieg / BVerwG prüft Fahr­ver­bote / Deniz Yücel frei (Legal Tribune Online)
20/15 Rapport Netizen: Selon un document fuité de la Commission européenne, les entreprises de technologie devraient s’auto-réguler sur les discours offensants (Global Voices)
22/02 Une messagerie sécurisée, privée et chiffrée ? Voici Mailfence ! (GeekHebdo)
23/02 Explained: what the EU’s major new data protection rules mean for you (EuroNews)
23/02 The Rise of the Namibian Surveillance State: Part 2 (The Namibian)


01/03 EU Commission’s Recommendation: Let’s put internet giants in charge of censoring Europe (EUbusiness.com)
01/03 EU gives Facebook and Google three months to tackle extremist content (The Guardian)
01/03 EU piles pressure on internet giants to remove extremist content (The Jerusalem Post)
02/03 /EU Tells Internet Firms to Delete Terrorist Content Within One Hour (PCMag)
07/03 General Data Protection Regulation: new laws from 2018 (1&1 Digital Guide)
08/03 Es duro ver a España en la misma lista que Turquía al hablar de respeto los derechos digitales y la privacidad (Publication)
08/03 Council of Europe takes world-leading step towards protecting online rights (EUbusiness.com)
08/03 EU ‘Recommends’ 1 Hour Takedown on Terrorist Content (Find VPN)
09/03 #failoftheweek: Es lebe das Flugtaxi / Die neuesten Tricks der Tracker / Dillon zu Gast im Studio / Interview mit den Young Fathers / Auf ARD-Alpha startet “Respekt” (1:05:30) (Radio Bayern 2)
15/03 EU Pushes More Censorship… To “Protect” You (Zero Hedge)
13/03 ‘Insidious’ and ‘Dangerous’: Digital Privacy Groups Issue Urgent Warning Over CLOUD Act (Common Dreams)
20/30 CLOUD Act Could Repeal Fourth Amendment Rights by March 23 (Trillions)
22/03 Interview: The ethics of big data, Facebook & Cambridge Analytica (WikiTribune)
23/03 Facebook under scrutiny in the the U.S. and the UK over Cambridge Analytica scandal, users in Iran blocked from Apple’s App Store, U.S. Congress urged to consider “implications” of CLOUD Act (Ranking Digital Rights)
26/03 Rushed US Cloud Act triggers EU backlash (EU Observer)
28/03 CLOUD Act puts Fourth Amendment at Risk (Liberty Nation)
30/03 Upload Filter: Das Ende des freien Internets? (Undogmatisch.net)
31/03 Europe is dealing with Facebook in a way the U.S. hasn’t (NY Daily News)


02/04 GOOGLE E FACEBOOK: espionagem no tempo de internet – Por Estevam Dedalus (Polêmica Paraíba)
02/04 Google och Facebook lägger miljoner på att påverka EU-politikerna (Expressen)
03/04 Contra el filtrado de contenido en Internet y el impuesto a la cita: paremos la #CensorshipMachine (Publico)
03/04 Retro: Ústavní soud zrušil protiústavní šmírovací zákon (Almanach)
04/04 Around 100 organisations urge Council of Europe to show greater transparency in negotiations on cybercrime (Agance Europe)
04/04 “Not Transparent”: NGOs Hit Out at Cybercrime Convention Talks (Computer Business Review)
05/04 Cos’è la General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), la nuova legge UE per la privacy (EuroNews)
06/04 Forze dell’ordine e Ministeri italiani in balia dell’antivirus… di Mosca (EuroNews)
07/04 Russia e Cina monopolizzano la sicurezza informatica europea (Gli Occhi Della Guerra)
09/04 EU: Více cenzury pro vaše „dobro“ (Tadesco)
09/04 Websites Worry EU May Seek Heavy Copyright Monitoring (Big Law Business)
10/04 Gafa : «Les géants du Net ont compris qu’il faut composer avec l’UE» (La Croix)
11/04 Contra el filtrado de contenido en internet (Avanguardia)
12/04 L’activisme digital alça la veu contra la directiva europea que vol protegir els drets d’autoria a Internet (Directa)
12/04 Internet Censorship – Guess What’s Coming Next? (True Publica)
16/04 EU to give judges power to seize terror suspect emails and texts (Financial Times)
17/04 Proposal Gives EU Judges Power To Demand Data Across Borders (Silicon UK)
17/04 Brussel wil bedrijven buiten EU dwingen data te overhandigen (NU.nl)
17/04 Η Κομισιόν θα αναγκάσει τους τεχνολογικούς κολοσσούς να παραδίδουν άμεσα τα ηλεκτρονικά μηνύματα υπόπτων τρομοκρατίας (Lifo)
17/04 Europa dwingt techbedrijven data van terreurverdachten vrij te geven (Demorgen)
17/04 Europa dwingt techbedrijven data van terreurverdachten vrij te geven (HLN)
17/04 EU to force tech firms to hand over terror suspects’ messages (The Guardian)
17/04 Tech companies to be forced to give police overseas data under EU proposal (Reuters)
17/04 EU proposes ‘revolutionary’ fast-track system for police data access (EURActive)
17/04 The EU may order tech firms to hand over terror suspects’ data inside 6 hours (Technology review)
17/04 Europese Commissie wil dat techbedrijven data sneller gaan overhandigen (Dutch IT Channel)
17/04 EU “e-evidence” proposals turn service providers into judicial authorities (EU Business)
17/04 Kritik mot EU-förslag om utlämning av data (Ny Teknik)
17/04 Kritik mot EU-förslag om utlämning av data (Sydvenskan)
17/04 EU kräver snabbare hjälp från Facebook och Apple (BreakIt)
17/04 EU vil tvinge techgiganter til at udlevere data hurtigt (Berlingske Business)
17/04 Perusahaan Teknologi Wajib Serahkan Data Pengguna ke Otoritas UE (Kabar24)
18/04 EU proposal to force tech firms to give overseas data to police (EJ Insight)
18/04 Title (Publication)
18/04 EU plans to increase access to electronic evidance in court cases (EU Policies)
18/04 Tech titans could be forced to give police overseas data under new proposal (ARN)
18/04 L’UE s’achemine vers l’obligation de partage de données avec la police (EurActive)
18/04 EU: Mere censur for at “beskytte” (Dokument)
18/04 EU wil bedrijven buiten Europa gaan dwingen data te overhandigen (Numrush)
18/04 Unia chce dać policji łatwiejszy dostęp do naszych danych online (Onet Wiadomości)
18/04 Proposals on electronic evidence perceived as hasty response to US CLOUD Act (Agance Europe)
19/04 Szykują się pierwsze skargi na podstawie RODO (Gazeta Prawna)
23/04 Tarifários zero rating em Portugal criticados por organizações internacionais (SapoTek)
23/04 “Portugal tem as piores violações da neutralidade da internet” (Pais ao Minuto)
23/04 Associações europeias pedem à Anacom medidas para “internet livre e aberta” (Expresso)
23/04 Associações europeias pedem à Anacom medidas para “Internet livre e aberta” (Diario de Noticias)
Associações europeias pedem à Anacom medidas para “Internet livre e aberta”
(Dinheiro Vivo)
23/04 Organizações de diversos países pedem à ANACOM que defenda a neutralidade da Internet (Ardina)
23/04 Perusahaan Teknologi Harus Serahkan Data Luar Negeri di bawah Proposal U (Saru Harapan)
24/04 Portuguese NGOs urge Anacom to block zero-rating offers (Telecom Paper)
24/04 Organizações internacionais pedem à ANACOM o fim do zero-rating (Aberto até de Madrugada)
24/04 Facebook is about to get hit with regulation, just not from the U.S. (The Informer)
25/04 Männer in der digitalen Welt (Volksblat)
25/04 Net neutrality death delayed (Capacity Media)
26/04 Tech Companies to Be Forced to Give Police Overseas Data under EU Proposal (OMG News)
26/04 Over 145 organisations representing a broad spectrum of stakeholders join forces to call upon the EU Member State Ambassadors to continue technical discussions on the copyright reform and to not grant the Bulgarian Council Presidency a mandate to negotiate with the European Parliament (CopyBuzz)
26/04 EU pritišće Facebook i Google da pojačaju borbu protiv lažnih vijesti (Lider)
26/04 EU piles pressure on social media over fake news (Reuters)
26/04 EU-Kommissar für Sicherheitsunion fordert Klarnamen-Registrierung im Internet (NetzPolitik)
26/04 EU tells platforms to sort fake news by October or face new law (EU Observer)
26/04 “Fake news” strategy needs to be based on real evidence, not assumptions (EU Business)
26/04 Organizações de diversos países pedem à Anacom que defenda a neutralidade da Internet (Ardina)
26/04 EU jača pritisak na društvene mreže zbog širenja lažnih vijesti (AlJazeera Balkans)
26/04 EU tells social media giants to combat fake news or face new regulations (BrinkWire)
26/04 EU jača pritisak na društvene mreže zbog širenja lažnih vijesti (Publication)
26/04 EU piles strain on social media over faux information (Mining for news)
26/04 Europska komisija sastavlja Kodeks za sprječavanje širenja lažnih vijesti (Index.hr)
26/04 EU piles pressure on social media over fake news (UsamaTech)
26/04 EU Piles Pressure on Social Media Over Fake News (America News Portal)
27/04 EU piles pressure on social media over fake news (CGTN)
27/04 EU Piles Pressure on Tech Giants Like Facebook, Google Over Fake News (News18)
27/04 EU Piles Pressure on Social Media Over Fake News (NewsRains)
27/04 EU Piles Pressure on Tech Giants Like Facebook, Google Over Fake News (Newsnow)
27/04 Letzte Ausfahrt: Gesetzgeberische Maßnahmen (MDR.de)
27/04 Unión Europea no sede terreno ante noticias falsas (El Tiempo)
29/04 EU tells social media giants to combat fake news or face new regulations (ProNews)
30/04 Burgerrechtenbeweging bezorgd om e-privacywetten (Computable)


02/05 Why Europe’s privacy clampdown may not solve Facebook’s data scandal woes (Foxnews)
02/05 “Rights offline are valid online, laws offline are valid online”, says global Internet expert at World Press Freedom Day launch (DemerareWaves)
02/05 France, Spain, Italy and Portugal go beyond maximalist on © (CopyBuzz)
07/05 EU-Staaten arbeiten an neuen Ansätzen zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung (Heise Online)
08/05 Nowy model pozyskiwania danych cyfrowych w sprawach karnych (Publication)
10/05 Conoces tus derechos digitales (ElMundo)
15/05 EDRi calls on Parliament’s political groups to ban micro-targeting in their election campaigns (Agance Europe)
15/05 Offener Brief: Europäische Parteien sollen auf Microtargeting verzichten (Netzpolitik)
15/05 Title (DKE Chicago)
18/05 Netzpolitischer Wochenrückblick KW 20: Bayern kriegt Polizeigesetz, Berlin informiert über Funkzellenabfrage (Netzpolitik)
22/05 What Europe needs to ask Mark Zuckerberg (Politico)
22/05 Perusahaan-Perusahaan Teknologi Wajib Berbagi Data (NNews.id)
22/05 GDPR: How Europe’s new Internet rules could change your life (alJazeera)
22/05 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg begins European leg of apology tour (Los Angeles Times)
23/05 Facebook’s Zuckerberg in Europe as tough data rules take effect (rfi)
23/05 European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Lessons for U.S. Privacy Policy (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
23/05 Cos’è la General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), la nuova legge UE per la privacy (EuroNews)
24/05 Ons vier jaar durende gevecht voor de bescherming van jouw gegevens (HQ-Niews)
24/05 Com ens protegeix el nou reglament europeu de protecció de dades? (VilaWeb)
25/05 RODO: koniec z traktowaniem nas jak towar (Portal Pomorza)
25/05 Czy RODO oznacza koniec traktowania nas jak towarów? (DII)
25/05 Today, a new E.U. law transforms privacy rights for everyone. Without Edward Snowden, it might never have happened. (The Washington Post)
25/05 GDPR: European tech firms struggle with new data protection law (AlJazeera)
25/05 POLITICO Brussels Influence, presented by The GSMA: Facebook hearing mess — EU election countdown — In-house agencies (Politico)
25/05 Unión Europea implementa fuertes medidas de protección de privacidad en internet (LeRed21)
31/05 The latest EDRi-gram (Wired)
31/05 Proposed EU Copyright Law Could Drastically Change Internet Sharing and Publishing (ECW)
31/05 Industry groups amp up lobby campaign to topple ePrivacy bill (EurActive)


01/06 GDPR a EDSM: Od svobodného internetu na hlídaný EUnet? (PCtunning)
03/06 European Digital Rights Activists Warns About EU Censorship Machine (FreezeNet)
04/06 EU-US work on police access to data hits roadblocks (PoliticoPRO)
05/06 Compte rendu de la conférence du 24 mai 2018 – Conversations européennes #3 – Réguler l’internet, un enjeu politique européen (EU Logos)
08/06 EU GDPR Comes Into Force, But Reaction Is Divided (FreezeNet)
11/06 Internet se může zcela změnit. Kontroverzní zákon je o krok blíž (Svobodni Svet)
DD/MM Title (Publication)
06/06 Dok se mi “zabavljamo” GDPR-om, EU uvodi “porez na linkove” i filtriranje naših sadržajae (Netokracija)
11/06 Kodi CLAMPDOWN: New piracy laws could change the face of illegal streaming FOREVER (Express)
12/06 Will EU copyright law ‘carpet bomb’ the digital world? (New Internationalist)
13/06 Will US net neutrality repeal be felt around the world? (WikiTribune)
14/06 What’s really behind the EU law that would ‘ban memes’ – and how to stop it before June 20 (TheNextWeb)
15/06 What’s in actuality within the help of the EU law that can perchance “ban memes” – and cease it before June 20 (Multinews)
14/06 L’Internet libre et ouvert est en danger : vous pouvez arrêter ce désastre (Linuxfr)
15/06 Europe’s Proposed “E-Evidence” Package Draws Fire (FreezeNet)
20/06 EU birokrati izglasali cenzuru interneta i zabranu memea, što sada? (Index)
20/06 EU takes first step in passing controversial copyright law that could ‘censor the internet’ (The Verge)
20/06 EU Copyright Reform Proposal Clears Lead Legislative Committee, To Cheers And Jeers (Intellectual Property Watch)
20/06 New EU Rules Could Ban Memes and Destroy the Internet as We Know It (AntiMedian)
20/06 EU Committee Approves Copyright Directive (Computer Business Review)
20/06 Internet Pioneers Warn New EU Rules Would Turn Web Into “Tool for Automated Surveillance and Control” (Common Dreams)
20/06 Joe McNamee: «Cette directive renforce la domination des géants du web» (Le Soir)
20/06 MEPs ignore expert advice and vote for mass internet censorship (EU Observer)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (TechCrunch)
20/06 Europe Slams the Door on Free Speech and Passes Article 13 (Freezenet)
20/06 EU-Urheberrecht: Weichenstellung für Upload-Filter und Presse-Leistungsschutzrecht (iRight info)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (Blogramo)
20/06 Europe Slams the Door on Free Speech and Passes Article 13 (FreezeNet)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (TopTechz)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content – TechCrunch (Tech News)
20/06 Copyright: la commissione giuridica del Parlamento europeo ha votato per la censura di massa su Internet (Virtual Blog News)
20/06 La red se moviliza contra la propuesta europea de copyright que pretende convertir a las empresas en policías de contenidos (Publico)
20/06 Pioneros de Internet advierten que las nuevas normas de la UE convertirán la web en una “herramienta para la vigilancia y el control automatizados” (Steemit)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (Tech News Park)
20/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content – TechCrunch (Tech Snaq)
20/06 https://www.curtisryals.com/2018/06/20/eu-parliamentary-committee-votes-to-put-american-internet-giants-in-charge-of-what-speech-is-allowed-online/ (Curtis Ryals Reports)
20/06 EU Parliamentary Committee Votes To Put American Internet Giants In Charge Of What Speech Is Allowed Online (Give info)
20/06 https://netzpolitik.org/2018/schlag-gegen-die-netzfreiheit-eu-abgeordnete-treffen-vorentscheid-fuer-uploadfilter-und-leistungsschutzrecht/ (NetzPolitik)
21/06 Como uma nova legislação europeia de direitos autorais pode arruinar a internet como a conhecemos (Gizmodo Brasil)
21/06 Internet Pioneers Warn New EU Rules Would Turn Web Into “Tool for Automated Surveillance and Control” – Jessica Corbett (Wall Street Window)
21/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content – TechCrunch (Tech News)
21/06 European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee Goves green Light to Harmful Link Tax and Pervasive Platform Censorship (Censored Today)
21/06 Филтри и данък върху линковете – какво означават те за нас? (Conservative)
21/06 Пагубни решения за свободното разпространение на информация (Terminal3)
22/06 #LaRéplique – L’approbation par le parlement européen de la directive Copyright suscite des inquiétudes (EurActive Blogs)
22/06 Schlag gegen die Netzfreiheit:EU-Abgeordnete treffen Vorentscheid für Uploadfilter und Leistungsschutzrecht
(Demokratisch Links)
24/06 “Copyright protection in the EU”: the new reform can affect not only the media platforms (Habrahabr)
24/06 The new reform can affect not only the media platforms / IT-GRAD / Habr company blog (TechOrt)
24/06 Die große Filterphobie (Taz)
24/06 European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee Gives Green Light to Damaging Link Tax and Pervasive Platform Censorship (SCAm Channel)
25/06 Zivilgesellschaft: EU-Kommission muss gegen Vorratsdatenspeicherung vorgehen (Heise Online)
25/06 La commission des affaires juridiques du Parlement européen a voté pour les robots-censeurs de l’article 13 : quelle sera la suite ? (My tiny Tool)
26/06 La direttiva europea sul copyright minaccia internet? (World News netwoek Italy)
28/06 The latest EDRi-gram (Wired)
29/06 Segons European Digital Rights (EDRi) Espanya destaca “vergonyosament” en llibertat d’expressió (Català Digital )
29/06 EU-Copyright-Eklat: Dorothee Bär und Netzpolitiker gegen Upload-Filter (Heise Online)
29/06 Otra ONG de defensa de los derechos civiles pide derogar la ‘ley mordaza’ (El Nacional)
28/06 Directive Copyright : le vote du Parlement européen fixé au 5 juillet (Numerama)
28/06 La direttiva dell’UE sul copyright: una minaccia per la rete? (Buongiorno Slovachia)
29/06 Otra ONG de defensa de los derechos civiles pide derogar la ‘ley mordaza’ (Niews Reporter)
30/06 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (TYoungSystems)


02/07 Interview zur DSGVO: Mit so krassen Reaktionen wurde wirklich nicht gerechnet (TreffPunktEuropa)
02/07 MEPs’ email says Article 13 “will not filter the internet”; JURI MEP’s tweet says it will (CopyBuzz)
02/07 https://unita.news/2018/07/02/i-danni-che-la-direttiva-sul-copyright-fara-alle-nostre-liberta-e-cosa-possiamo-fare-per-contrastarla/ (Unità News)
03/07 Italian Wikipedia ‘goes dark’ in protest over proposed EU copyright laws (NewsTalk)
03/07 Title (Heise Online)
03/07 EDRI Publishes Legal Analysis of Upload Filter Legislation, Article 13 (FreezeNet)
03/07 Copyright Filter: EU Rapporteur Voss accuses opponents of “Fake News” before (Techwarf)
03/07 Folgenschwere Abstimmung: EU-Parlament entscheidet über Zukunft des Urheberrechts (NetzPolitik)
04/07 Copyright: Wikipedia dopo Italia, al buio anche Spagna, Lettonia ed Estonia (Radio Roseto)
04/07 Όταν το όραμα γίνεται ψευδαίσθηση: Η Πρόταση Οδηγίας για τα δικαιώματα πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας στην ψηφιακή ενιαία αγορά (Lawpost)
04/07 Es geht um Fairness – nicht um Zensur (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)
04/07 Folgenschwere Abstimmung: EU-Parlament entscheidet über Zukunft des Urheberrechts (Kein Feiwild)
05/07 European MEPs Saves the Internet and Rejects Article 11 and Article 13 (FreezeNet)
05/07 Im nächsten Kampf um die Netzfreiheit (Sichtplaz)
05/07 Im nächsten Kampf um die Netzfreiheit (Sichtplaz)
05/07 Chi vuole e chi no la direttiva europea sul copyright (Wired)
05/07 Direttiva Ue sui diritti d’autore, quali conseguenze sull’informazione digitale (Due Righe)
05/07 “Todesdrohungen”: Klagen über Lobbying überschatten EU-Copyright-Entscheid (Heise Online)
05/07 Im nächsten Kampf um die Netzfreiheit (Sichtplaz)
05/07 Article 13 rejected by MEPs: What you need to know about the law that could have killed internet culture (alphr)
05/07 European Parliament Rejects Starting Negotiations On Copyright Reform Proposal (Intelectual Property Watch)
05/07 EU Parliamentarians support an open and democratic debate around the Copyright Directive (EUbusiness)
06/07 European Union rejects controversial copyright reforms (PCfind)
06/07 Europe takes another step towards copyright pre-filters for user generated content (VivalTopFeeds)
06/07 EU-Urheberrechtsreform: Das sind die Reaktionen auf die Entscheidung des Europäischen Parlaments (Cancom)
06/07 Alleged “meme ban” stalls in Europe; internet celebrates with memes (Salon)
06/07 Reform des Urheberrechts – Zwischen Todesdrohungen und Begeisterung – Reaktionen auf EU-Entscheid (Gamestar)
10/07 MEPs send copyright reform proposal back for rethink (EUbusiness)
11/07 Council of Europe cooperation against cybercrime — human rights Octopus or fishy deals? (FinTechLog)
14/07 Privacy Rights Organization Zwiebelfreunde Raided by German Police (FreezeNet)
16/07 Ceta, si crede ancora che porterà guadagni miracolosi. Ma i numeri dicono altro (Il Fatto Quotidiano)
16/07 Get to Know Berlin’s Hottest Female Entrepreneurs for 2018 (The Culture Trip)
18/07 What will it take to #savetheinternet in Europe? The view from Romania (Globam Voices)
23/07 Schutz gegen Tracking unerwünscht: Österreich verschiebt ePrivacy-Reform auf den St. Nimmerleinstag (Netzpolitik)
24/07 YouTube patzt beim Löschen von Terrorvideos (Heise Online)
27/07 Digitaler Binnenmarkt – here we come? (UdL Digital)
31/07 EFF Pioneer Awards 2018 an Netzaktivisten Joe McNamee, Fair-Use-Kämpferin Stephanie Lenz und Forscherin Sarah T. Roberts (Netzpolitik)
31/07 Cosa bisogna fare per #salvareinternet in Europa? Punti di vista dalla Romania (Global Voices)


14/08 How to file a copyright infringement complaint on YouTube (Pleaders)
15/08 3 ways to ensure the internet’s future is creative, collaborative, and fair (BigThink)
19/08 El Internet Freedom Festival 2019 buscará consolidar València como la “capital mundial de los derechos digitales” (EuropaPress)
20/08 Internet Freedom Festival torna per a consolidar València com a “capital mundial dels drets digitals” (Valencia Extra)
21/08 EU aiming at early removal of extremist content (China Daily)
21/08 EU to force removal of extremist content (Ecns.cn)
23/08 #SaveYourInternet: Europljani izlaze na ulice 26. kolovoza, pridružite se i vi! (Netokracija)
30/08 I’m back in Europe just in time for the latest EDRi-gram (Wired)


03/09 Curtain up for the next round (Web Schauder)
03/09 La guerra del copyright vuelve a la Eurocámara sin consenso a la vista (El Diario)
04/09 How the EU will force all artists to use Youtube, forever (BoingBoing)
04/09 Tech Firms Brace for Salvo of European Privacy Rules (National Jpurnal)
05/09 La UE abre la puerta a garantizar el anonimato de los alertadores de corrupción (La Vanguardia)
05/09 New European Copyright Proposal Blasted As Internet Threat (Freezenet)
05/09 Lobbyismus per Mail-Lawine (Frankfurter Allgemeine)
05/09 How the EU will drive all artists to make use of Youtube, endlessly (WakaJobs)
06/09 YouTube Chief Says Article 13 “Undermines Creative Economy” (TorrentFreak)
0709 YouTube’s CBO speaks out against Article 13 of EU’s controversial copyright law (PacktHub)
07/09 YouTube Chief Says Article 13 “Undermines Creative Economy” (Dimitrology)
11/09 The continental rift: Two pieces of EU legislative reform that could have ‘substantial effect’ on freedom of expression rights for media and public alike (Press Gazette)
12/09 Here Comes Another EU Law Threatening Google and Facebook With Enormous Fines (Fortune)
12/09 European Parliament Approves Negotiating Stance On Copyright Reform (Intelectual Property Watch)
12/09 EU lawmakers back controversial copyright reforms (EuroNews)
12/09 Juncker goes to war against disinformation and online terrorist content (EurActive)
12/09 EU Parliament flip-flops backwards on copyrigh (EUBussines)
12/09 Here Comes Another EU Law Threatening Google and Facebook With Enormous Fines (Yahoo)
12/09 EU-Kommission will Terrorismus mit Upload-Filtern und automatischen Systemen bekämpfen (Netzpolitik)
12/09 Tout comprendre sur la directive européenne sur le droit d’auteur (Konbini)
12/09 EU-Parlament stimmte für Uploadfilter und Linksteuer (Der Standard)
12/09 La riforma sul Copyright è passata (StartUp Italia)
12/09 Perché l’approvazione della riforma del copyright non è un buona notizia (Wired Italia)
12/09 La Comisión Europea quiere que las webs borren los comentarios relacionados con terrorismo en menos de una hora (El Diario)
12/09 União Europeia dá sinal verde para nova lei de direitos autorais que pode arruinar a web (Gizmodo)
12/09 European Parliament Approves Catastrophic Copyright Bill That Threatens the Internet (Gizmodo)
12/09 Here Comes Another EU Law Threatening Google and Facebook With Enormous Fines (Yahoo News)
12/09 Today, the EU will vote on the future of the internet (again) (The Verge)
12/09 Internetbedrijven riskeren miljardenboete bij te laat verwijderen terreurpropaganda (RTL Z)
12/09 EU Government Rejects Internet Rights and Passes Copyright Laws (FreezeNet)
12/09 Google: Nytt direktiv kan strypa de kreativa (Svenska Dagbladet)
13/09 https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/09/european-parliament-approves-catastrophic-copyright-bill-that-threatens-the-internet/ (Gizmodo)
13/09 Il Parlamento europeo minaccia Internet con una catastrofica legge sul copyright (Il Corriere Nazionale)
13/09 New Copyright Powers, New “Terrorist Content” Regulations: A Grim Day For Digital Rights in Europe (IT Security News)
13/09 EU Introduces New Law Forcing Tech Firms to Censor Unwanted Speech in 24 Hours (Breibart)
13/09 Ξετυλίγοντας το κουβάρι: Μεταρρύθμιση στο Δίκαιο της Πνευματικής Ιδιοκτησίας (The Press project)
13/09 Title (MaeketWatch)
13/09 EU Copyright Reform Meets Resistance From Stakeholders, Some Governments (ip-watch.org)
13/09 EU Introduces New Law Forcing Tech Firms to Censor Unwanted Speech in 24 Hours (Breitbart)
15/10 Facebook-Datenleck: Drei Fehler, 30 Millionen erbeutete Profile (Netzpolitik.org)
16/09 Security and migration proposals dominate Juncker`s `State of the Union` announcements (NoRacism.net)
17/09 Europe Doubles Down, Now Demands 1 Hour Removal of Terrorism (FreezeNet)
18/09 Ξετυλίγοντας το κουβάρι: Μεταρρύθμιση στο Δίκαιο της Πνευματικής Ιδιοκτησίας (Ipyxida)


01/10 Tu DNI electrónico por fin servirá de algo en la Unión Europea, aunque surgen dudas sobre la privacidad (Genbeta)
03/10 Öffentliches Geld? Öffentliches Gut! (Netzpolitik)
05/10 Los trabajadores tendrán desconexión digital en 2019 (ibercampus.es)
06/10 YouTube chief warns EU Copyright Directive could ‘undermine’ the creative economy (IPP Pro)
12/10 > The European Commission’s E-evidence Proposal: Toward an EU-wide Obligation for Service Providers to Cooperate with Law Enforcement? (European Law Blog)
15/10 Wie Europa den Schutz gegen Tracking im Netz aufs Abstellgleis manövriert (netzpolitik.org)
19/10 Civil society warns Commission about a binding solution to online misinformation (Agence Europe)
25/10 The EU call it copyright, but it is massive Internet censorship and must be stopped (Open Democracy)
30/10 Nicht nur die üblichen Verdächtigen: Breites Bündnis fordert von Altmaier Einsatz für Anti-Tracking-Gesetz [Update] (netzpolitik.org)


01/11 European NGOs Launch GDPR Campaign (Michigan Standard)
13/11 EU DPAs Receive Thousands of Complaints Under the GDPR (Lexology)
14/11 Censure antiterroriste : Macron se soumet aux géants du Web pour instaurer une surveillance généralisée (ewb.one)
16/11 RGPD: l’autorité belge de protection des données a du mal à tenir le rythme (Le Soir)
22/11#SaveYourInternet : l’Union Européenne va-t-elle tuer la création artistique sur le web ? (Moustique)
23/11Is The Internet Under Threat? Interview With #SaveYourInternet Member On EU’s Copyright Directive (Forbes)


05/12 E-Evidence: A threat to people’s fundamental rights? (Euractiv)
05/12 Alertan de que Europa frena su propuesta de privacidad ‘online’ mientras avanza hacia un mayor control policial de las redes (Publico)
06/12 EU-Staaten stimmen für Upload-Filter im Kampf gegen Terrorpropaganda (Heise Online)
06/12 Civil society invites Council to review its copy of proposal for a Regulation on electronic evidence (Agence Europe)
07/12 Los Estados paralizan el plan de la UE para vetar las cookies abusivas y blindar los metadatos (El diario)
07/12 e-Evidence: EU-Staaten beschließen umstrittenen Entwurf zu elektronischen Beweismitteln (Netzpolitik)
12/12 Alerta por el JEFTA, el controvertido tratado entre la UE y Japón aprobado este miércoles (Cuarto Poder)
14/12 The UN airs ‘serious concerns’ about an EU bid to control ‘terrorist content’ online (The Canary)
17/12 French privacy watchdog tells Whatsapp to stop sharing data with Facebook (RFI)
19/12 E-Privacy: Österreich legte neue EU-Datenschutzregeln auf Eis (Der Standard)
20/12 Europe and USA Face Off on Data Protection Rules (Courthouse News Service)
22/12 What does the repeal of net neutrality mean for development? (Devex)
30/12 Réseaux sociaux, données personnelles, algorithmes… comment inventer un futur numérique plus radieux ? (Le Monde)

EDRi’s Press Review 2017

EDRi’s Press Review 2016

EDRi’s Press Review 2015

EDRi’s Press Review 2014


18 Feb 2019

Call for Nominations – EDRi Board elections 2019


EDRi’s General Assembly will elect this year three Board members to replace two outgoing Board members and fill in one vacant position. Once the three Board members are elected, the new Board will select its Treasurer and Vice-President. 2019 is a special year, as EDRi’s General Assembly will also decide which Board member becomes the EDRi President.

All EDRi members are invited to apply to become a member of theEDRi Board.

As an EDRi Board Member, you will help shape the future of the organisation and the network and advance our mission to promote and protect human rights in the digital environment. You will have a responsibility as an employer of the EDRi office and vis-à-vis the members.

When electing new Board members, the General Assembly will give due considerations to ensure that the composition of the Board reflects the diversity of the EDRi membership and that there is a gender and geographic balance between the Board members. EDRi should seek to achieve representation of diverse cultural backgrounds on the Board. The GA will also consider the desired skills and experience needed for having the ability to effectively deliver a function of the Board. Such skills and experience include, but are not limited to: being an NGO board member, board chair or working with boards, fundraising knowledge, human resources insight, public relations, legal or technical skills, political experience, outreach/community experience and similar. null

To be eligible for election

  • Any candidate must declare that they have permission to stand from their own organisation, if their organisation is a member of EDRi;
  • Any candidate joins the Board in their personal capacity and not as a representative of an organisation;
  • Any candidate must be endorsed. Members may set their own procedures for endorsements. When an individual steps forward to run for a position, he or she needs to seek endorsement from a member organisation. Organisations will have the opportunity to withdraw endorsement before the Board elections.
  • Any candidate shall have the opportunity to make a presentation for their candidacy in writing and in person at the General Assembly.
  • Any candidate must not have served on EDRi’s Board for more than three of the previous nine years, discounting any years prior to 2017 .
  • Any candidate must declare any potential conflicts of interest, and anything else that might affect their eligibility, such as criminal convictions (as defined in EDRi’s Conflict of Interest Policy).

Required skills

  • Finances: Budgeting and accounting (only for the position of Treasurer);
  • Experience in advocacy, activism, outreach/community and campaigning for digital human rights;
  • Experience with NGO board membership, board chairing or working with boards, or a similar role;
  • Fluent command of spoken and written English.

Additional skills (to complement the current Board):

  • Fundraising (especially corporate donations, high network individuals, foundation grants);
  • Knowledge of politics and culture in Northern and/or Southern Europe;
  • Knowledge of very small digital rights organisations (volunteers only / staff under 3);
  • Human Resources and governance;
  • Legal, financial and policy oversight;
  • Response to emerging issues;
  • Network development, liaison with the General Assembly.

EDRi’s Board

  • Consists of 6 volunteer members, elected for a 3-year period;
  • Governs EDRi in compliance with its statutes and internal working regulations;
  • Meets remotely on a quarterly basis to discuss general management issues and twice in person for more detailed face-to-face discussions and strategic planning workshops (Board travels are reimbursed by the organisation);
  • Service on the Board should not require more than the equivalent of 10 to 12 days (80 – 100 hours) per year (excluding General Assemblies).
  • Focuses on strategy and accountability rather than day-to-day operations;
  • Participates in deliberations and decisions in matters of policy, finance, fundraising, programs, human resources and advocacy;
  • Supports the growth of the network and deals with membership issues as they arise;
  • Provides advice on how EDRi should respond to emerging issues outside of the strategic plan;
  • Assists in developing and maintaining positive relations among EDRi members, staff members, membership, donors and other stakeholders to enhance EDRi’s mission;
  • Provides all legal, policy and financial oversight to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations.
  • Reviews the internal regulations and policies and recommending any changes for approval by Board and/or General Assembly as required
  • Oversees the Executive Director(s), including supporting and participating in the annual evaluation of the Executive Director(s);
  • Reviews policy and other recommendations received from Board and senior management staff, for decision.

How to apply:

To apply, please fill in the application form which includes a self-assessment of your skills and a brief biography (350 words max.) outlining your interest, experience and background. In addition, please include in your application a statement of endorsement by an EDRi-member and the signed Conflict of Interest Form.

Documents should be sent by mail to elections.committee[at]edri.org (PGP Claire Fernandez: 0x6AA82F3C236CBE38).

The Election Committee would be happy to answer any questions you may have about what being a Board member entails or to provide contact details of EDRi members. Write to elections.committee[at]edri.org for further info.

The closing date for applications is 3rd March 2019. The vote will take place during the General Assembly, on 7th April 2019 in London.The closing date for applications is 3rd March 2019. The vote will take place during the General Assembly, on 7th April 2019 in London.


14 Feb 2019

Copyright Directive: Upload filters strike back


The behind-closed-doors discussions between the European Parliament negotiating team, EU Member States and the European Commission on the copyright Directive finalised last night with an agreement. The text, prepared by France and Germany, will be put to a vote between March and April in the European Parliament and could become law soon afterwards. The copyright Directive, originally aimed at “modernising” the copyright framework, has fallen short of those expectations. Instead, it forces the implementation of upload filters and brings only minor improvements in other areas. The proposal could lead to unlawful restrictions on freedom of speech and reduce access to knowledge.

The secret discussions have ended with the worst version of the “Censorship machine” we have seen so far. Citizens need to react, once again, to prevent these upload filters that threaten our freedom of expression from becoming reality.

– said Diego Naranjo, Senior Policy Advisor at European Digital Rights

If the unofficial text available is confirmed, it is in essence a transposition of the bilateral Franco-German deal reached last week. In its current version, Article 13 will bring direct liability for hosting providers.

Internet hosting services would be automatically considered to be performing a “communication to the public” when copyrighted material (or “other subject matter”) is hosted by them, regardless of whether it was uploaded by the company itself or by a user. The internet services shall then make “best efforts” to conclude licensing agreements with the rightsholders on any piece of copyrighted material (potentially every article, image, audio file and video uploaded to the internet). It is unclear how that will work in practice. Nevertheless, the elimination of the intermediate liability exception will likely leave companies no choice than to monitor every piece of content that is shared and uploaded on their platforms.

The only services to be exempted from liability, as introduced in the final deal, would be the few platforms that would fulfil the accumulative criteria that the online platform is:
(a) less than three years old
(b) making less than 10 million Euro annual turnover and
(c) visited by less than 5 million unique visitors a month.

One MEP and two big member states have turned music investors into legislators, despite input from academics, the inventor of the World Wide Web, civil society and even the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. It is now up to people across EU to set the record straight and make their voice heard.

– added Diego Naranjo (EDRi).

This proposal has worsened many better versions that were discussed before in the European Parliament. It further ignores the main critique against Article13 – upload filters empower (mostly US-based) Big Tech companies to decide on restrictions on freedom of speech in the EU.

The vote on the final text will likely be cast in the EP plenary in late March or early April. We will continue to push for a substantial reform of the flawed provisions in the run-up to the vote. EDRi calls on everyone committed to a free and uncensored internet to raise their voice and contact MEP’s through the #SaveYourInternet campaign.

Contribution by Yannic Blaschke and Diego Naranjo

Read more:

Unofficial Trilogue Agreement on Article 13

Franco-German tandem strikes dangerous deal on copyright (08.02.2019)

Copyright: Open Letter calling for the deletion of Articles 11 and 13 (29.01.2019)

Copyright: Compulsory filtering instead of obligatory filtering – a compromise? (04.09.2018)

How the EU copyright proposal will hurt the web and Wikipedia (02.07;2018)

EU Censorship Machine: Legislation as propaganda? (11.06.2018)

13 Feb 2019

Czech BBA nominates the worst privacy intruders for the 14th time

By Iuridicum Remedium

The 14th Big Brother Awards (BBA) in the Czech Republic will take place on 14 February 2019. Awards for the biggest privacy intruders in 2018 will be announced by EDRi member Iuridicum Remedium (IuRe). The Big Brother Awards, based on a concept created by EDRi member Privacy International, are intended to draw public attention to privacy issues and alarming trends in data privacy.

edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Supporters_banner.png” alt=”—————————————————————–
Support our work – make a recurrent donation!
—————————————————————–” width=”600″ height=”50″>

A jury comprising of experts on new technologies, lawyers, human rights defenders, as well as journalists will choose the winners out of nominations sent in by the general public. The Czech Big Brother Awards are granted in four categories:

  1. the award for the biggest privacy intruder in the long-term perspective
  2. the award for the biggest business privacy intruder
  3. the award for biggest administrative privacy intruder
  4. the award for Big Brother’s Quote (for the most appalling quote on a privacy-related topic)

Among the this year’s nominees are:

  • Facebook for large-scale data leaks
  • Google for continuous tracking the users’ locations without their consent
  • the People’s Democratic Republic of China for using algorithms and big data to select people for re-education
  • companies for using chip payments methods followed by collecting clients’ data at music festivals
  • initiatives requiring the introduction of CCTV in schools

In addition to the Awards for the privacy intruders, there is also a positive award, named after Edward Snowden, that goes to people or projects that stand for the privacy issues.

The 2017 Awards were given to Ministry of Industry and Trade (for data retention), to Equa bank (for forcing its clients to agree to provide the so-called TelcoScore), and to Member of the Parliament Jiří Běhounek (for his proposal for an amendment to the Act on Health Services that introduced an unrestricted access to electronic healthcare documentation). The positive Edward Snowden Award went to Open Whisper Systems (for developing the open source Signal application for end-to-end encrypted mobile communication).

The winners of the 2018 Awards will be revealed during the press conference on the morning of 14 February at the Cross Club Café Prague and announced in the Czech BBA Awards website.

Iuridicum Remedium (IuRe)

Czech Big Brother Awards

Czech BBA for Ministry of Industry and Trade for data retention (07.03.2018)

Czech Big Brother Awards shine light on privacy invasions (11.03.2015)

The drones to monitor hikers in nature, too smart chips in keychains for children and vacuum cleaner. Check out the nominees for a sniffer of a year (only in Czech, 12.02.2019)

(Contribution by EDRi member Iuridicum Remedium, Czech Republic)



13 Feb 2019

BBA Bulgaria: Parliament wins the title of top privacy violator

By Metamorphosis

After a six-year hiatus, leading Bulgarian digital rights organisations have revived their country’s version of the Big Brother Awards. Originated by EDRi member Privacy International in 1998, the concept of Big Brother Awards have been adopted by multiple civil society organisations in Europe and beyond. The event aims to increase awareness about the misuse of personal data and the harms that this can bring to individuals and society at large.

edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EDRi-gram_donate_banner.png” alt=”—————————————————————–
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
—————————————————————–” width=”600″ height=”50″>

On 3 February 2019, the 2018 Award winners were announced in a ceremony in Sofia: Bulgaria’s parliament and the well-known educational institute Center for Education and Qualification of Pedagogical Specialists Ltd.

With companies and private institutions collecting, storing and processing enormous amounts of personal data in the pursuit of more efficient marketing and greater social control, the event committee received many nominations. EDRi member Internet Society Bulgaria (ISOC-Bulgaria) solicited suggestions from the public. These were evaluated by a jury of renown public figures, including lawyers, academics, consultants, journalists, and civil right activists. The jury subsequently presented two Awards: one to the state institution and the other to the private organisation that had “excelled” at violating citizens’ privacy.

The competition was fierce, with government institutions like the National Security Agency, the State Prosecutors Office, and the Anti-Corruption Commission being nominated. Finally, the 2018 Big Brother Award for a state organisation went to the Bulgarian Parliament, for its adoption of a new personal data law. In addition to setting new standards for the protection of citizens’ data against misuse by companies and institutions, the law sets specific rules for journalists and their reporting, when it touches upon the lives and activities of individuals. The law sets limitations around the impact that disclosing data will have on the personal life of the subject, the circumstances in which personal data becomes known to a journalist, and the importance of the personal data or its public disclosure to the public interest. All of these stipulations, when subject to interpretation by media outlets and courts alike, could result in a threat to media freedom, especially when it comes to reporting on the activities of public officials.

“On their own, the criteria are okay. They indeed aid protection, and are in the direction of increasing sensitivity. The issue we have with them is that they can have side effects, and have an adverse effect on another human right — the right to free expression and media freedom. They can be used as rules for conducting the journalistic profession, which in practice can amount to actual censorship. Therefore, the award is not so much for the criteria, as it is for not taking into account the risk of turning them into a threat to media freedom,” explained jury member and media expert Georgi Lozanov.

Dimitar Ganchev, member of the ISOC-Bulgaria board, added that another reason for which the Parliament was granted the Award was that the vote on the law was taken without any debate and with very low attendance by lawmakers.

The private sector organisation that clenched the Big Brother Award is the Center for Education and Qualification of Pedagogical Specialists Ltd., thanks to a massive personal data leak that affected more than 9 000 students and more than 2 000 of their parents. Lists with their personal data were exposed to the public through various mechanisms, including posting the details on a major social network. Other nominees in the private sector category included Municipal Forestry from Elin Pelin, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, and Trimoncium, a medical centre in Plovdiv.

None of the nominees responded to the invitation to attend the ceremony. However, the event enjoyed wide press coverage.

Bulgaria’s parliament and an educational institute named top privacy violators in “Big Brother Awards” (11.02.2019)

Big Brother Awards Bulgaria


(Contribution by Filip Stojanovski, EDRi member Metamorphosis, Macedonia)



13 Feb 2019

All Cops Are Blind? Context in terrorist content online

By Chloé Berthélémy

The battle for the control of content and devices online has been at the centre of European policy-makers’ attention since the internet was created, but it has only increased in the recent years.

Without any consideration for scientific literature on violent radicalisation factors, the current paradigm in the area of counter-terrorism leads to a proliferation of mechanisms to speed up the removal of harmful content online without the appropriate safeguards. The most problematic is the mechanism that empowers private companies to become the online police while restricting the checks and balances on the side of the law enforcement agencies.

The Referral Units were set up within police forces tasked with the removal of material, which may or not be illegal, from the internet. These Referral Units notify to internet platforms pieces of content which are “likely” breaching their terms of service and request that they remove the content on a voluntary basis − just like other users would do when flagging content, but coming from a law enforcement agency that decides not to exercise their investigative powers and lets a private company do the job instead.

edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/EDRi-gram_donate_banner.png” alt=”—————————————————————–
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
—————————————————————–” width=”600″ height=”50″>

In its proposal for a Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online, the European Commission expects “competent authorities” (supposedly Europol’s Internal Referral Unit and national referral units) to indicate allegedly harmful content to platforms in the form of referrals. Online content is thus removed according to private terms of service agreements, on the sole decision of private hosting service providers, and not necessarily in accordance with the law. Because of this procedure, the citizen does not have an adequate access to remedies in case his legal content is unlawfully removed.

Restrictions on fundamental rights should remain a decision taken only by judicial or independent courts. When establishing the legality of content online, expert legal evaluation is an absolute necessity to prevent violations of the freedom of expression. In the case of referrals promoted by the European Commission, judicial oversight is completely omitted, and sensitive decisions about legality are made by platforms under important pressure from police authorities. Beyond the major concerns this mechanism raises in terms of privatisation of law enforcement and rule of law, it casts doubt upon the ability of police forces to correctly identify illegal content in first instance.

Referral Units fail to assess the legality of Daesh parody magazine

Considering that requests submitted by police officers are four times more successful in having the content removed than other users’ requests, it is essential to question the role of police authorities in the content regulation debate. Police authorities have neither the duty nor the expertise to interpret legal provisions determining the limits to freedom of speech, and to distinguish illegal content from nasty but not illegal one.

One example relates to the referrals sent by the Belgian and the French Internet Referral Units to the Internet Archive. This website aims at building a digital library of websites and other cultural goods in digital form, in order to provide researchers and the public access to published works. In 2017, the Internet Archive was requested by both national authorities to remove a digital copy of a parody magazine mocking Daesh online magazine “Rumiyah”. While the Belgian authorities simply held that the hoax magazine shares “Daesh Propaganda”, the French Central Office for the Fight Against Crime Linked to Information Technology and Communication (OCLCTIC) considered it violates articles on terrorism and violence incitement of its national criminal code.

When actually reading the specifically flagged pages, the reader can note that the magazine only reports the decline of the international terrorist organisation and examples of failed military operations where suicide bombers accidentally blew themselves. It is difficult to argue that this material contains Daesh propaganda or promotes terrorism.

Short-cut or the long way around?

Among the links referred by the French national police, one identifies a valid piece of Daesh propaganda, of which the access is protected by a log-in requirement. The French authorities added that the hosting service provider – the Internet Archives – had from then the knowledge of this litigious fact. They were referring to the liability exemption introduced by Article 14(1a) of the e-Commerce Directive, according to which the provider is required to remove the content upon obtaining knowledge or awareness. Since the Commission has also not been able to clearly answer whether a referral would constitute “actual knowledge” of the illegality of content, the Internet Archive remains uncertain whether it faces sanctions in case of non-removal. Either the content is illegal and should be subject to a removal order issued by a court, or it is not.

Referrals constitute short-cuts for national law enforcement authorities to delete content fast by pressuring hosting service providers, regardless if it is illegal or not − an easy alternative to getting a judicial order. The amendments by the European Parliament Committee on Internal Market and Consumers Protection (IMCO) to the Regulation on Terrorist Content Online suggests the deletion of such measures. Hopefully, the lead Committee, Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), will take them into account for the final report.

EDRi Amendments on the proposal for a Regulation to prevent the dissemination of terrorist content online (16.01.2019)

EDRi Recommendations for the European Parliament’s Draft Report on the Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online (December 2018)

CULT: Fundamental rights missing in the Terrorist Content Regulation (21.01.2019)

Terrorist Content: IMCO draft Opinion sets the stage right for EP (18.01.2019)

(Contribution by Chloé Berthélémy, EDRi intern)