EDRi-gram
Filter by...
-
Noyb files another complaint against Amazon Europe – black box algorithm discriminates customers
The e-commerce giant offers customers the possibility to pay for products later via "Monthly Invoicing". A customer was automatically rejected from using this payment method without Amazon giving any reasons why. When Amazon’s customer service could not provide any further information, the customer submitted an access request under Article 15 GDPR in order to find out why he was rejected – but the company still refused to provide any information.
Read more
-
EDRi-gram, 17 November 2021
Check out our joint call to the Portuguese government to oppose a proposed law that tries to sneak in biometric mass surveillance. In this edition, we also explain how Facebook's latest announcement about deleting their facial recognition database demonstrates that voluntary self-regulation from tech giants is superficial and cannot replace actual legislation against these practices. And discuss the shortcomings of Facebook whistleblower's testimony.
Read more
-
Why chat control is so dangerous
Fighting the dissemination of child sexual abuse material, the EU Commission is considering dangerous measures: the automated search of content on mobile phones and computers. See answers to the key questions regarding „chat control“ in Netzpolitik's overview.
Read more
-
Do no harm? How the case of Afghanistan sheds light on the dark practice of biometric intervention
In August 2021, as US military forces exited Afghanistan, the Taliban seized facial recognition systems, highlighting just how a failure to protect people’s privacy can tangibly threaten their physical safety and human rights. Far from being good tools which fell into the wrong hands, the very existence of these systems is part of broader structures of data extraction and exploitation spanning continents and centuries, with a history wrapped up in imperialism, colonialism and control.
Read more
-
Big-tech lobby sets the rules about big-tech in Europe
The dominance of Google and Facebook is disastrous for the public debate online. We've been saying this for a long time. But this dominance can also be felt in the regulation of the same platforms. Huge amounts of money are spent by big tech to influence European laws and regulations.
Read more
-
AI Regulation: The EU should not give in to the surveillance industry
Although it claims to protect our liberties, the recent European Commission’s legislative proposal on artificial intelligence (AI) promotes the accelerated development of all aspects of AI, in particular for security purposes.
Read more
-
European Parliament’s plans of a Digital Services Act threaten internet freedoms
The EU's Digital Services Act is a chance to preserve what works and to fix what is broken. EFF and other civil society groups have advocated for new rules that protect fundamental rights online, while formulating a bold vision to address today's most pressing challenges. However, while the initial proposal by the EU Commission got several things right, the EU Parliament is toying with the idea of introducing a new filternet, made in Europe. Some politicians believe that any active platform should potentially be held liable for the communications of its users and they trust that algorithmic filters can do the trick to swiftly remove illegal content
Read more
-
New Belgian data retention law: a European blueprint?
On 21 April 2021, the Belgian Constitutional Court canceled the country’s data retention law, which has allowed every Belgian’s telecom, location and internet metadata to be retained for 12 months, for its potential use in criminal investigations. The Belgian Constitutional Court followed the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment released a few months earlier, which declared that practice of general and indiscriminate retention of personal data illegal (for the third time).
Read more
-
Big brother at the Prague airport. The state refuses to explain how the biometric camera system works
When Václav Mach, collaborator of the Czech digital-legal organization, an EDRi member, Iuridicum Remedium (IuRe) and law student at the University of Olomouc, asked the state for more detailed information on the use of smart biometric cameras at Prague's Václav Havel Airport, he obtained just general phrases. "They kept secret what they could. Their non-transparency doesn’t add to their credibility,“ he says in an interview with HlídacíPes.org. The article below is a summary of the more extensive interview, translated from Czech into English by EDRi member IuRe.
Read more
-
EDRi-gram, 3 November 2021
In this edition of the EDRi-gram, we share EDRi's guide to help Members of the European Parliament make strong human rights choices regarding the Digital Services Act amendments prior to the IMCO vote. We also share the unfortunate news of how Europol's unfettered and problematic data-driven model of policing has been given the green light, which will lead to serious risks of discrimination based on race, socio-economic status or class, and nationality.
Read more
-
EDRi-gram, 20 October 2021
In this edition of the EDRi-gram, we share the launch of a collection of four scenarios that describe situations involving cross-border access to personal data and explains the necessary safeguards needed in the e-Evidence Proposal to mitigate these fundamental rights harms. We also demonstrate how software embedded in people’s devices can monitor our movements and surveil us, how a ban on surveillance advertising can fix Facebook and a lot more. Also now's your chance to submit your session proposal for the 10th annual Privacy Camp event, happening on January 25, 2022!
Read more
-
EDRi-gram, 6 October 2021
We celebrate a historic milestone for our human rights as the European Parliament heard what EDRi has been long advocating for and took a bold stand against unacceptably risky uses of AI like biometric mass surveillance and predictive policing. We also cheer for civil society's success in Serbia as community and international pressure forced the government to withdraw its law, threatening to subject people to oppressive and privacy intrusive biometric surveillance.
Read more