14 Feb 2018

EDRi’s Press Review 2017

By EDRi

During the past year, our work to defend citizens’ rights and freedoms online has gained an impressive visibility – we counted more than two hundred mentions! – in European and international media. Below, you can find our press review 2017.

JANUARY

09/01 Germany’s plan to fight fake news (The Christian Science Monitor)
10/01 Telecoms firms and internet services like WhatsApp face tougher new privacy rules (Euractiv.com)
10/01 Anti-Piracy: Can It Exist Without Censorship? (Digital Music News)
10/01 Public Domain Project Calls on EU to Abandon Piracy Filter Proposals (TorrentFreak)
11/01 Commission leaves the European Parliament with lots of work to do (eubusiness.com)
12/01 Briefing: Regulating privacy in the age of Big Data (New Europe)
14/01 Werbewirtschaft kritisiert EU-Pläne zur E-Privacy-Verordnung (Deutschlandfunk)
17/01 Yahoo! E-mail Scan Allegations May Test EU Data Transfers (Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security)
24/01 CETA clears crucial hurdle in Parliament’s trade committee (Euractiv.com)
26/01 In Moldova, Civil Society Stands Up to ‘Big Brother’ Law (Global Voices)
30/01 Dänemark: Neues Gesetz könnte zu erheblicher Internetzensur führen (netzpolitik.org)


FEBRUARY

01/02 Türkçe İçeriğiyle Çocuklar İçin Dijital Mahremiyet Kılavuzu (Bigumigu)
01/02 Donald Trump: et maintenant, les données personnelles (Libération)
01/02 Letter on proposal to reform the EU Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive (Euractiv.com)
08/02 Anti-Whistleblower Provision Buried In Germany’s New Data Retention Law Challenged In The Courts (Techdirt)
13/02 NGOs sign appeal to MEPs to stop CETA (European Public Health Alliance)
13/02 Finissons-en définitivement avec CETA! (Le cercle des libéraux)
15/02 Voller Gummiparagraphen: EU-Anti-Terrorismus-Richtlinie gefährdet Grundrechte (netzpolitik.org)
15/02 MEPs approve EU-Canada trade deal (EurActiv)
16/02 Copyright power matrix (Politico.eu)
16/02 CETA ondermijnt recht op privacy en bescherming van gegevens (DeWereldMorgen.be)
17/02 Il Parlamento Europeo ha allargato il reato di terrorismo – Il Post (Nuova Resistenza)
20/02 Umstrittene europäische Antiterror-Richtlinie verabschiedet (domain-recht)
21/02 Windows 10 privacy settings still worrying European watchdogs (TechCrunch)
21/02 Windows 10 remoteness settings still worrying European watchdogs (Kalen2uTech)
22/02 European Watchdogs: Microsoft Sells User’s Personal Data To Third Parties, Collecting It Thru Windows 10 [REPORT] (University Herald)
23/02 Meet the innovators fighting for your right to privacy online (Wired UK)
28/02 MWC 2017: Wikipedia goes data-free in Iraq (BBC News)
28/02 They’re Your Fingerprints, But Has Someone Hacked A Database To Use That Information? (Huffington Post South Africa)
28/02 Truth Behind Advertising In A Digital Era (iPulse)
02 Joe McNamee “Our Open Web Fellow is helping us bring practical understanding to the political debate.” (Our stories from the Mozilla Network)
02 The 5G policy approach (Pan European Networks: Government – issue 21)


MARCH

01/03 US surveillance law may see no new protections for foreign targets (CSO Online)
06/03 France Sees Sharp Rise in Blocked and De-Listed Websites (Global Voices Online)
07/03 La UE busca blindar el negocio del copyright con una “máquina de censura” (Público)
07/03 EU Internet Advocates Launch Campaign to Stop Dangerous Copyright Filtering Proposal (EFF)
08/03 “Save The Meme” Campaign Protests EU’s Proposed Piracy Filters (TorrentFreak)
08/03 Privacy Shield : les défenseurs des libertés s’inquiètent (Politis)
08/03 ‘Sin memes no hay democracia’, la nueva campaña contra la reforma de la ley de copyright de la UE (Cadena SER)
16/03 Netizen Report: Azerbaijani Bloggers Targeted with Legal Threats, Spearphishing (Global Voices Online)
27/03 Urheberrechts-Richtlinie: Die EU will Copyright-Verstöße stärker filtern als Terror-Propaganda (netzpolitik.org)
28/03 Constituido el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Derechos Digitales de los Ciudadanos (La Moncloa)
28/03 Rechtsausschuss entschärft Oettingers EU-Leistungsschutzrecht (Telepolis)
28/03 El Minetad crea un grupo experto para adaptar los derechos fundamentales al entorno digital (TICbeat)
29/03 The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online (Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project)
31/03 NAFTA Renegotiation Will Resurrect Failed TPP Proposals (EFF)


ARPIL

06/04 #PrivacyShield: MEPs alarmed by US developments that undermine privacy safeguards #DataProtection (EU Reporter)
13/04 1.477 Änderungsanträge: Im Europaparlament beginnt die heiße Phase der Urheberrechts-Richtlinie (netzpolitik.org)
17/04 Trump’s stance on internet privacy puts U.S.–E.U. pact on thin ice (The Daily Dot)
20/04 El seminari d’estiu de la Unipau analitzarà ‘l’ús del terror com a arma política’ entre el 6 i el 12 de juliol (cugat.cat)
20/04 Associação portuguesa de defesa dos direitos digitais avança (Computerworld Portugal)
21/04 Audiovisuelle Medien: Eine EU-Richtlinie wird Video-Anbieter zwingen, massenhaft legale Videos zu löschen (netzpolitik.org)
21/04 Studie des Europaparlaments: Staatstrojaner bergen erhebliche Risiken für das Grundrecht auf Privatsphäre (netzpolitik.org)
25/04 Meet the ‘Avengers’ of the privacy world: The ‘Digital Defenders’ (IAPP – The Privacy Advisor – International Association of Privacy Professionals)
25/04 Euro-Quote und Werbung: EU-Parlament will Videoportalen strengere Regeln setzen (Heise Newsticker)


MAY

10/05 Mit Technik zur Liebe (rbb|24)
10/05 Liebe in Zeiten der Tinderisierung (Wiener Zeitung)
11/05 Microsoft CEO: ‘It’s up to us to help stop dystopian nightmare of Orwell’s 1984’ (International Business Times UK)
11/05 Hakuna Metadata – Warum Metadaten und Browserverläufe mehr über uns verraten als oft vermutet (netzpolitik.org)
16/05 Druck auf Facebook wächst in mehreren Ländern (F.A.Z. PLUS)
18/05 Portabilité des contenus en ligne : première étape vers le marché unique du numérique (CUEJ.info)
18/05 Niederländisches Zero-Rating-Verbot gekippt – Frontalangriff gegen die Netzneutralität (netzpolitik.org)
19/05 Netzneutralität: Niederländisches Gericht kippt Verbot von Zero Rating (Heise Newsticker)
22/05 European Digital Rights – EDRi annual report (Contexte.com)
23/05 Dein Profil aus Twitter-Metadaten: ALTwitter (netzpolitik.org)
23/05 Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz: Bürgerrechtler und Verbände schicken Brandbrief nach Brüssel (iX Magazin)
24/05 EC called on to oppose German hate speech law (Telecompaper (subscription))
25/05 Controversial EU rules could make life trickier for tech groups (Financial Times)
25/05 Controversial EU video rules may cause glitches for US tech giants (Irish Times)
29/05 More han 60 Groups, Companies Urge EU To Step Up Copyright Reform (Intellectual Property Watch)
30/05 Huge Coalition Protests EU Mandatory Piracy Filter Proposals (TorrentFreak)
30/05 ePrivacy: Was die EU dieses Jahr für Privatsphäre und Kommunikationsfreiheit tun kann (netzpolitik.org)
30/05 Pravo na nenavist’: Evrokomissiju prizyvajut za?itit’ svobodu slova ot nemeckogo zakonodatel’stva (RT)
31/05 DIGITAL: Copyright reform only briefly alluded to during Council (Bulletin Quotidien Europe 11798) (Agence Europe)
31/05 Crowdfunding campaign to buy stolen NSA hacking tools from Shadow Brokers (Network World)
31/05 Shadow Brokers : des hackers voulaient se cotiser pour récupérer les outils volés de la NSA (MAJ) (01net.com)


JUNE

01/06 While EU Copyright Protests Mount, the Proposals Get Even Worse (EFF)
07/06 re:publica 2017 – Digitale Liebe und analoges Risiko (netzpolitik.org)
14/06 Privacy-keen Germans push back against plans to ‘duplicate the US data chaos’ (ZDNet)
21/06 ePrivacy-Debatte: Konservativer EU-Abgeordneter vergleicht seine Kollegen mit iranischem Wächterrat (netzpolitik.org)
23/06 EU pressures firms to tackle online terrorism (EUobserver)
23/06 Wie man ein Imperium der Algorithmen beherrscht (netzpolitik.org)
23/06 Germany wants to fine Facebook over hate speech, raising fears of censorship (The Verge)
24/06 Kritik an Verknüpfung von Raubkopien und Terrorismus (Heise Newsticker)
26/06 Ljubye ograni?enija v messendžerah nedopustimy, s?itaet èkspert EDRi (ria.ru)
26/06 Agujeros en la privacidad de las comunicaciones pueden ser usados por terceros (Diario Digital Nuestro País)
28/06 Europäische Bürgerrechtler kritisieren Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (netzpolitik.org)
28/06 La justicia europea tumba el envío a Canadá de los datos de pasajeros aéreos (netzpolitik.org)
30/06 Germany passes controversial law to fine Facebook over hate speech (The Verge)
30/06 Mal eben den Rechtsstaat outsourcen (Zeit Online)
30/06 Facebook could now be fined $57m over hate speech (Mashable)
30/06 Germany passes controversial law to fine Facebook over hate speech (CNBC)
30/06 Haatbericht niet op tijd verwijderd? Techbedrijf in Duitsland riskeert boete van 50 miljoen euro (Volkskrant)
30/06 Germany tells social-media companies to erase hate — or face fines up to $57 million (Washington Post)
30/06 German Law Requires Companies To Swiftly Delete ‘Obviously Illegal’ User Content (Tom’s Hardware)


JULY

02/07 Facebook, Twitter Could Face Fines of $57 Mln for Failing to Remove Hate Speech (Netralnews)
02/07 Facebook reacts at Germany’s new law over hate speech (TechnoChops)
03/07 Germany Set To Fine Social Media Companies For Not Removing Hate Speech (GC Report)
04/07 Fines to guarantee open internet vary greatly within EU (EUobserver)
06/07 Etyka wed?ug Facebooka (Krytyka Polityczna)
06/07 Germany Passes Law to Fine Social Media Companies that Fail to Remove Hate Speech (Law Street Media)
10/07 Stalemate Continues in Negotiations Over European Copyright Filters (EFF)
12/07 Filtern, Sperren, halbgare Kompromisse: Erste EU-Ausschüsse haben über Urheberrecht abgestimmt (netzpolitik.org)
12/07 Zbli?a si? „podatek od linków” i antypirackie filtrowanie internetu? Unijna reforma zmierza w z?? stron? (Bezprawnik)
13/07 Social media: the Faustian deal (Euronews)
13/07 Intermediaries Could Be Made Liable In EU Copyright Legislation (Intellectual Property Watch)
14/07 Copyright votes in CULT and ITRE: Filtering, blocking & half-baked compromises (EU Business)
18/07 Serious concerns raised about EU Copyright reform (VPN Compare)
18/07 German social media law sparks protest (The Irish Times)
26/07 Top EU court says deal on sharing airline passenger names must be changed (The Irish Times)
26/07 Top EU court says deal on sharing airline passenger names must be changed (The Globe and Mail)
26/07 EU court’s blow to Canada deal marks new hurdle for data laws (Euractiv)
26/07 Top EU court says Canada air passenger data deal must be revised (Reuters)
26/07 EU defends airline data-sharing after court ruling (EU Observer)
26/07 Court grounds EU counterterrorism plan (Politico.eu)
26/07 EuGh-Urteil: Flugpassagierdaten-Abkommen zwischen EU und Kanada illegal (Euractiv)


AUGUST

02/08 e-Privacy Regulation: Good Intentions but a Lot of Work to Do (Foreword to issue 2/17 of the European Data Protection Law Review)
30/08 Joint Statement | Ten Demands for a progressive Trade Policy (European Public Health Alliance)


SEPTEMBER

06/09 EU Presidency Pushing Other Member States for Substantial Internet Surveillance (CircleID)
07/09 European Union Calls For Massive Internet Censorship (The Daily Caller)
08/09 EU pushes for indiscriminate internet surveillance in leaked anti-piracy plan (theinquirer.net)
08/09 Reality check: has Juncker delivered on his promises? (Euronews)
08/09 European Union Considering Intrusive Upload Filter as “Link Tax” Alternative (bleepingcomputer.com)
08/09 POLITICO Brussels Influence: Transparency kick-off (sort of) — Martin ‘No lobbying’ Selmayr — Soil savers (Politico)
08/09 EU anti-piracy plan would introduce internet surveillance and ‘ancillary copyright’, claim campaigners (Computing)
08/09 EU anti-piracy plan calls for Europe-wide ancillary copyright (Kit Guru)
11/09 The importance of Europeans sticking together to achieve a progressive Europe (Open Democracy)
11/09 La multa a Facebook podría haber sido hasta 20 veces mayor en 2018 (Público)
13/09 Kampagne: Öffentliches Geld, Öffentlicher Code (netzpolitik.org)
13/09 EU Copyright Reform Meets Resistance From Stakeholders, Some Governments (Intellectual Property Watch)
13/09 Brief: Software Paid For With Public Money Should Be Open Source, Groups Say (Intellectual Property Watch)
13/09 31 colectivos reclaman una legislación que obligue a las instituciones públicas a utilizar ‘software’ de código abierto (Cuatro)
13/09 Kampagne Public Code: Software für die Verwaltung soll frei sein (Heise Newsticker)
13/09 Nach Wahlsoftware-Debakel. Aktivisten fordern Transparenz bei staatlicher Software (Spiegel Online)
13/09 Freie Software: Wenn der Staat finanziert, dann Open Source (Computer Base)
13/09 PublicCode fordert Freigabe aller öffentlich finanzierten Software (Pro-Linux.de)
13/09 31 Organisationen fordern freie Software in der Verwaltung (golem.de)
13/09 31 colectivos reclaman una legislación que obligue a las instituciones públicas a utilizar ‘software’ de código abierto (La Vanguardia)
18/09 New legal tool on electronic evidence: Council of Europe welcomes civil society opinion (Council of Europe)
18/09 Cross-border access to data: Council of Europe submission (Digital Rights Watch)
19/09 This Is What NGOs Want on E-Evidence From the Council of Europe (Civil Liberties Union for Europe)
19/09 EU Clamping Down On Data Use For Marketing (The NonProfit Times)
19/09 Urheberrechtsreform: Estnische EU-Ratspräsidentschaft wirbt für Upload-Filter (netzpolitik.org)
21/09 The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales (Gizmodo)
21/09 EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales (Techdirt)
22/09 EU paid for, then suppressed, study that says piracy doesn’t harm sales (Neowin)
22/09 Piratage : l’UE a caché une étude aux conclusions optimistes (Les Numeriques)
22/09 EU covers up study that reveals piracy doesn’t harm sales (Daily Sabah)
22/09 EU withheld a study that shows piracy doesn’t hurt sales (endgadget)
22/09 The EU found out that piracy doesn’t harm sales and tried to hide it (buzz.ie)
22/09 EC Diagnosed with © ‘Ostrich Syndrome’: Missing Study on Piracy (copybuzz)
22/09 European Union paid for, then suppressed, study that says piracy doesn’t harm sales (Hi-Tech Facts)
22/09 EU Report: Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales (Hi Tech Beacon)
22/09 The EU Commission couldn’t prove piracy affects sales (Click Lancashire)
22/09 Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales — EU Report (Newburgh Gazette)
22/09 The EU has suppressed a study that claimed that piracy does not harm sales (The Stopru)
22/09 The EU Suppressed a 300-Page Study That Found Piracy Doesn’t Harm Sales (Gizmodo India)
22/09 EU withheld a study that shows piracy doesn’t hurt sales (Yahoo! Finance)
23/09 EU withheld a study that shows piracy doesn’t hurt sales (Gears of Biz)
25/09 EU held back report that found piracy doesn’t harm music sales (M Magazine)
25/09Studie objednaná EU dokazuje, že mezi pirátstvím a prodejností není souvislost (oTechnice.cz)
25/09 “L’UE a ignoré une étude sur le piratage parce que ses conclusions ne respectaient pas son programme” (Express)
26/09 La Commission Européenne dissimule un rapport qui nie les liens entre piratage et baisse des ventes (Le Soir)
26/09 Kontroverse um Piraterie-Studie der EU-Kommission (Heise Newsticker)
26/09 Net Neutrality Reversal Will Harm Free Speech, International Groups Argue (MediaPost)
26/09 New International Open Letter Warns US Lawmakers over Net Neutrality Rollback (CommonDreams)
26/09 Wat er in het weggemoffelde EU-rapport over cyberpiraterij staat: dit mochten we niet weten (Newsmonkey)
27/09 IGF Austria: Fake-News, Meinungsfreiheit und Sicherheit (Futurezone.at)
28/09 EU wants tech firms to police the internet (EUobserver)
28/09 Commission’s position on tackling illegal content online is contradictory and dangerous for free speech (EUbusiness)
28/09 Illegale Inhalte im Netz: EU-Kommission setzt auf die vermeintliche Wunderwaffe „Upload-Filter“ (netzpolitik.org)
28/09 EU internet policing proposals spark free speech concerns (Deutsche Welle)
29/09 European Commission puts pressure on tech firms to tackle illegal content (Silicon Republic)
29/09 EU Proposes Take Down Stay Down Approach to Combat Online Piracy (TorrentFreak)
29/09 EDRi: Grenzübergreifender Datenaustausch muss mit Grundrechten vereinbar sein (netzpolitik.org)
29/09 European Commission backs takedown-and-stay-down for combating piracy online (Complete Music Update)
29/09 Europe’s digital future on the table at Tallinn summit (rfi.fr)
29/09 Europe’s online piracy crackdown is ‘dangerous for free speech’, activists claim (The Sun)
29/09 European Initiative Says Don’t Curb Objectionable Online Content, U.S. Action Unlikely (Corporate Counsel)
29/09 Europe’s digital future on the table at Tallinn summit (Radio France Internationale)


OCTOBER

02/10 EU internet policing proposals spark free speech concerns (DeathRattleSports.com)
02/10 CopyCamp Conference Discusses Fallacies Of EU Copyright Reform Amid Ideas For Copy Change (Intellectual Property Watch)
05/10 LIBE ePrivacy vote delayed; JURI, ITRE and EDPS weigh in (iapp)
05/10 EU fails to protect free speech online, again (Article 19)
11/10 Who’s afraid of… e-Privacy? (IFEX)
16/10 Over 50 Human Rights & Media Freedom NGOs ask EU to Delete Censorship Filter & to Stop © Madness (copybuzz)
16/10 56 Groups Call For Deletion Of Internet Filtering Provision In EU Copyright Proposal (Intellectual Property Watch)
16/10 Civil Society Groups Call for Deletion of Internet Filtering Provision in EU Copyright Proposal (CircleID)
16/10 57 rights groups back anti-Article 13 letter to the European Parliament (Gears of Biz)
16/10 57 rights groups back anti-Article 13 letter to the European Parliament (theinquirer.net)
16/10 Facebook als Hilfs-Sheriff: Kritik an Auslagerung der Rechtsdurchsetzung im Netz (Heise Newsticker)
17/10 Abandon Proactive Copyright Filters, Huge Coalition Tells EU Heavyweights (TorrentFreak)
17/10 Digital rights groups speak out against EU plan to scan online content (Engadget)
17/10 57 Organisationen fordern: Pflicht für Upload-Filter streichen (Initiative Urheberrecht)
17/10 Digital rights groups speak out against EU plan to scan online content (Yahoo! Finance)
18/10 EU encryption plans hope to stave off ‘backdoors’ (Politico.eu)
18/10 EFF wants ‘illegal’ EU copyright reform deleted (World Intellectual Property Review)
18/10 Bruxelles veut aider les États face aux défis du chiffrement (Contexte)
19/10 Now the digital rights groups write to the EU about safe harbour reform (Complete Music Update)
19/10 EU encryption plans hope to stave off ‘backdoors’ (Baltic Review)
19/10 EU justice committee passes amended ePrivacy directive (Telecompaper)
19/10 Hauchdünne Mehrheit für Kompromiss bei ePrivacy-Reform (netzpolitik.org)
19/10 Euro-parliamentarians say a clear “no” to the anti-privacy lobby (EU Business)
19/10 European lawmakers still hearing conflicting demands over safe harbor in Copyright Directive (RAIN News)
20/10 EU MEPs want stronger privacy rules for Internet-enabled communication services (Help Net Security)
21/10 ePrivacy: Die Lobbymacht der Datenindustrie (netzpolitik.org)
24/10 Sechs Gründe, warum die totlangweilig klingende ePrivacy-Verordnung für dich wichtig ist (netzpolitik.org)
25/10 ePrivacy: Morgen entscheidende Abstimmung über Vertraulichkeit der digitalen Kommunikation (netzpolitik.org)
26/10 How Europe fights fake news (Colombia Journalism Review)


NOVEMBER

10/11 Commission wants to extend law for police data access to the US (EurActive.com)
21/11 Urheberrechts-Richtlinie: Wenig LIBE für Uploadfilter im EU-Parlament (Netzpolitik.org)
28/11 What is net neutrality? (Channel 4 News)
30/11 November 2017 Open Letter on EU © Reform (copybuzz)


DECEMBER

10/12 Net Neutrality’s Holes in Europe May Offer Peek at Future in U.S. (The New York Times)
10/12 Net Neutrality’s Holes in Europe May Offer Peek at Future in U.S. (Latest News7)
11/12 Net neutrality, i paladini Usa temono un “pasticcio all’europea” (CorCom)
12/12 Net neutrality’s holes in Europe may offer a peek at the future in America (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
13/12 Want cheaper British car insurance? Mind how you shop (Business Insider UK)
18/12 EU-Zensurmaschine bei Urheberrechtsreform: Zurück zu den Fakten! (Netzpolitik.org)
19/12 French privacy watchdog tells Whatsapp to stop sharing data with Facebook (rfi)
19/12 EU chief responsible for combating ‘hate speech’ deletes ‘hate-filled’ Facebook account (Express)
21/12“Let’s not have democracy anymore, let’s have internet companies” (euroscope)
22/12 What does the repeal of net neutrality mean for development? (Devex)


EDRi’s Press Review 2016
https://edri.org/press-review-2016/

EDRi’s Press Review 2015
https://edri.org/edris-press-review-2015/

EDRi’s Press Review 2014
https://edri.org/edris-press-review-2014/

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
24 Jan 2018

CJEU hate speech case: Should Facebook process more personal data?

By Maren Schmid

Austria’s Supreme Court of Justice has referred a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) regarding hate speech on social media platforms. The referral could have a global impact on Facebook – and ultimately on our privacy and freedom of speech.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

The case goes back to 2016, when the former leader of the Austrian Green party, Eva Glawischnig, filed a lawsuit against Facebook over insulting post written about her, calling her a “corrupt oaf” and “wretched traitor to her people.” In May 2017, a court in Vienna ruled that the postings must be deleted across the platform, not just in Austria, but worldwide. The Austrian Supreme Court has now asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to confirm (a) if the deletion of a posting is only limited to the member state or should be done globally and (b) if Facebook has to delete only the individual post they were informed about, or also similar postings (for example by using an algorithm).

This raises numerous quite fundamental questions. First, the imposition of such a restriction based on automatic filtering appears to be a fairly literal contradiction to the Netlog/Sabam ruling, which opposed prior filtering of all content at the cost of a service provider (albeit dealing with different subject matter – copyright).

Secondly, it requires additional personal data processing from a company that rapaciously exploits user data for commercial purposes. While such cases are generally considered to be a simple balancing exercise between freedom of expression and the right being breached, the issue is more complex. Due to the personal data processing that the automatic filtering would require, the balance is between privacy, freedom of expression and freedom to conduct a business (especially if imposed on all providers subsequently, thereby also restricting competition) on the one hand, and combating hate speech on the other.

Thirdly, the application of the algorithm to “similar” cases requires a balancing judgement on how an (almost by definition) imperfect technology will be implemented by Facebook. This is especially relevant with regards to the last section of paragraph 1.3.8 of the Draft Recommendation of the Council of Europe (pending approval by Ministers in March 2018) on the roles and responsibilities of intermediaries, which points out the imperfection of automatic filtering – particularly as it cannot assess context. This article, for example, quotes the same words as were used against Eva Glawischnig, but are obviously not hate speech in this context.

If the CJEU were to support the view that Facebook should be obliged to filter by algorithm, it would have to configure its systems in a way that minimises its legal risks. To do this it would need to find a balance between the compelling reasons to over-censor and the limited reasons not take a more diligent approach:

Encouraging an error on the side of over-deletion, we have:

  • direct legal liability for failing to respect the order
  • secondary law on hate speech
  • implementation of terms of service, which are less clear and narrower than the law

Encouraging an error on the side of accuracy or under-deletion, we have:

  • customer relations

This would contradict various existing CJEU law on balancing of obligations. This balance of incentives is not conducive to free speech being protected. Support for extra-territorial application seems even more antithetical to the notion of freedom of expression and the rule of law. Restrictions on fundamental rights need to be accessible and predictable – it is challenging to imagine that the CJEU would consider that citizens elsewhere in the EU being subjected to regulation by imperfect Facebook algorithms would meet this criterion. It is puzzling that the Austrian court asked the question.

Fourthly, in the Telekabel case, the CJEU ruled as follows: “Accordingly, in order to prevent the fundamental rights recognised by EU law from precluding the adoption of an injunction such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the national procedural rules must provide a possibility for internet users to assert their rights before the court once the implementing measures taken by the internet service provider are known.” In addition to the fact that such national procedural rules generally do not exist, as shown by experience in Austria implementing that ruling, this safeguard is unenforceable in practice, because the measure will be (by definition) implemented for both illegal content and violations of terms of service.

Fifthly, the application of imperfect algorithms to “similar” and not necessarily illegal content (as well as inevitable extension to terms of service implementation) appears to fall below the standards demanded by the court in relation to the respect of the obligation for restrictions to be “provided for by law”. See, in particular, paragraph 139 of the EU/Canada PNR Opinion: “It should be added that the requirement that any limitation on the exercise of fundamental rights must be provided for by law implies that the legal basis which permits the interference with those rights must itself define the scope of the limitation on the exercise of the right concerned”.

How will the Court balance the rule of law, freedom of expression, privacy, basic principles of international law on predictability and accessibility and freedom to conduct a business with hate speech? Time will tell.

Draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries
https://rm.coe.int/draft-recommendation-on-internet-intermediaries-7th-revised-version-/1680770c37

CJEU Opinion on EU/Canada PNR Opinion
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=193216&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=828341

(Contribution by Joe McNamee, EDRi, and Maren Schmid, EDRi intern)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
22 Jan 2018

Press release: 6th annual Privacy Camp takes place on 23 January 2018

By EDRi

Tomorrow, on 23 January 2018, Privacy Camp brings together civil society, policy-makers and academia to discuss problems for human rights in the digital environment. In the face of what some have noted as a “shrinking civic space” for collective action, the event provides a platform for experts from across these domains to discuss and develop shared principles to address key challenges for digital rights and freedoms.

Themed “Speech, settings and [in]security by design”, the one-day conference at the Saint-Louis University in Brussels features panel discussions and privacy workshops led by experts in the fields of privacy, surveillance and human rights advocacy. The nonprofit, nonpartisan event draws privacy activists, civil society representatives, public servants and academia of all ages and backgrounds who are interested in improving privacy and security in communications and work towards the respect of human rights in the digital environment.

This year, Privacy Camp also features the “Civil Society Summit” of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS).

Among others, speakers of the Privacy Camp 2018 are Giovanni Buttarelli, Wojciech Wiewiorowski, Fanny Hidvegi, Glyn Moody, Katarzyna Szymielewicz, Juraj Sajfert, Marc Rotenberg. The full programme can be accessed here.

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
10 Jan 2018

2018: Important consultations for your Digital Rights!

By EDRi

Public consultations are an opportunity to influence the future legislation at an early stage, in the European Union and beyond. They are your opportunity to help to shape a brighter future for digital rights, such as your right to an open internet, a private life, and data protection, or your freedom of opinion and expression.

Below you can find a list of public consultations we find important for digital rights. We will update the list on an ongoing basis, adding our responses and other information that can help you get engaged.


Public consultation on fake news and online disinformation by the European Commission


Feedback on the 2nd data package or proposal for a Regulation on the Free flow of non-personal data


You can find public consultations of importance to digital rights and EDRi’s responses from previous years here:

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
13 Dec 2017

What happens to our data on rental cars?

By Privacy International

On 6 December 2017, EDRi member Privacy International published research about data on connected cars. The report “Connected Cars: What Happens To Our Data On Rental Cars?” presents concerns about the way connected transportation facilitates the generation and collection of information about drivers in ways that most people are not able to understand, question, or access.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work - make a recurrent donation! https://edri.org/supporters/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

When you rent a car at the airport or use a car-share for a family day trip, one of the first things you are likely to do before setting off on your journey, is to connect your phone to the car. Doing so can allow information such as your name and navigation history to be stored on the car. When the car is returned, this information is usually not deleted, and can therefore be accessible to the next driver. During the course of the research, Privacy International rented multiple cars and found that on every car past drivers’ personal information was readily accessible.

Beyond this information, connected cars can generate, collect, and store information about the car’s location and about how the driver interacts with the car – for example whether the driver often brakes suddenly. Privacy International is concerned that these types of information, which are of interest to third parties such as insurers, will be sold or shared with third parties without drivers being aware of it.

This first stage of Privacy International’s research focuses on data on rental cars, specifically the “infotainment system”, the in-car communications and entertainment system. Multiple rental companies, based in Europe, the UK, and the US, helped the researchers to understand their internal policies and procedures around driver data that is stored on infotainment systems, as well as how they view their position in data protection terms. The research was also conducted by renting a number of cars and looking at what data is collected and retained by the rental cars’ infotainment systems. Off the back of this research, Privacy International has written to rental companies to ask for further internal policies around data retention and deletion, as well to car manufacturers to ask about plans to build data deletion into cars. Various civil society organisations in the US and Europe joined in writing to the companies, including ANCE – The European Consumer Voice in Standardisation, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, EPIC, Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights, and the Norwegian Consumer Council. Privacy International has also written to the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office.

Report: Connected Cars: What Happens To Our Data On Rental Cars? (06.12.2017)
https://privacyinternational.org/node/1557

Coalition of consumer and privacy-rights groups send letters to rental companies and car-share schemes mentioned in new Privacy International report (06.12.2017)
https://privacyinternational.org/node/1559

Video: Connected Cars: What Happens To Our Data On Rental Cars? (06.12.2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uemTaOz5juk

(Contribution by Sara Nelson, EDRi member Privacy International)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
29 Nov 2017

e-Privacy: What happened and what happens next

By Anne-Morgane Devriendt

With the vote on the mandate for trilogues in the European Parliament Plenary session of 26 October 2017, the European Parliament confirmed its strong position on e-Privacy for the following inter-institutional negotiations, also called trilogues.

The e-Privacy Regulation aims at reforming the existing e-Privacy Directive to complement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding communication data and metadata, as well as device security. In order for the text to efficiently protect European citizens’ privacy, some key issues needed to be addressed in the Commission’s proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work - make a recurrent donation! https://edri.org/supporters/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

In October 2017, we encouraged citizens to contact Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to make sure the entire e-Privacy proposal will not be watered down. We (very exceptionally) asked them to support the mandate being granted to continue the negotiations on the proposal text in the trilogues. Here is the outcome of our campaign:

Protection of communications in transit and at rest (Art. 5)

Communications data is always sensitive. This is why, for instance, there is no point in protecting your email while it is being sent if any company hosting your email can read it once it arrives to your inbox, for example to target you with advertising. Therefore EDRi supports the protection of communication data both when it is in transit and at rest. The proposed Article 5 in the European Parliament (EP) version of the e-Privacy Regulation proposal protects “any interference with electronic communications”, including “data related to or processed by terminal equipment”. This is an important step in the right direction.

Consent as the only legal basis for processing (Art. 6)

Informed and free consent should be the sole legal basis for non-necessary processing of such data. Because of the intricate way online tracking works, only users who are fully informed (and free to make the choice) could allow that by consenting to that feature, if it is in their interest.

Privacy and devices protected by design and by default (Art. 10)

As happens with any other device that may create risks for the user, safety and security need to be part of the design and not an after-thought.This is why we need privacy by design and by default. Article 10 of the proposal states that all software allowing electronic communication should, “by default, have privacy protective settings activated to prevent other parties from transmitting to or storing information on the terminal equipment of a user and from processing information already stored on or collected from that equipment”.

The security of devices are also covered by Article 8 that restricts the use of end-users’ terminal equipment to what is strictly necessary, subject to consent.

Restrictions of users’ rights (Art. 11)

Article 11 limits restrictions to vague general public interests such as national security, defence and public security, but the EP has done a better job at being specific in the three sub-articles. Furthermore, Article 11 also contains provisions to ask for mandatory documentation on the requests to access communications by Member States.

Protection of encryption (Art. 17)

In order to protect citizens’ privacy and the safety of their electronic communications, it is fundamental to ban any attempts to undermine encryption. Article 17, on security risks, states that Member States cannot weaken encryption, for example by forcing companies to include ”back-doors” in their products.

The European Parliament has done a good job with its improvements to the text. Thanks to the strong position of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and citizens’ mobilisation, the European Parliament voted for a strong text that will protect citizens’ privacy and communication. However the fight is not over yet: the Commission, the Council and the Parliament have yet to reach an agreement during the obscure process called trilogues. The final text will be passed in the Plenary of the European Parliament in 2018, tentatively after the summer.

Tell the European Parliament to stand up for e-Privacy! (25.10.2017)
https://edri.org/contact-ep-eprivacy/

Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications) (23.10.2017)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0324&language=EN

EDRi’s position on the proposal of an e-Privacy regulation (09.03.2017)
edri.org/files/epd-revision/ePR_EDRi_position_20170309.pdf

Trilogues: the system that undermines EU democracy and transparency (20.04.2017)
https://edri.org/trilogues-the-system-that-undermines-eu-democracy-and-transparency/

(Contribution by Anne-Morgane Devriendt, EDRi intern)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
15 Nov 2017

High time: Policy makers increasingly embrace encryption

By Bits of Freedom

Encryption is of critical importance to our democracy and rule of law. Nevertheless, politicians frequently advocate for weakening this technology. Slowly but surely, however, policy makers seem to start embracing it.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work with a one-off-donation! https://edri.org/donate/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

Encryption is essential for the protection of our digital infrastructure and enables us to safely use the internet – without it, our online environment would be a more dangerous one. Thanks to encryption, companies can better protect our personal data online and internet users can safely communicate and exchange information. This makes encryption of the utmost importance not only for our democratic liberties, but also for innovation and economic growth.

Our governments should therefore stimulate the development and implementation of encryption, more than they currently do. It is without doubt undesirable when governments force companies to create backdoors in their encryption technologies, or to incorporate other ways of weakening it. Policy makers generally grapple with this position though, as they face pressure from police and security services.

Fortunately, in 2016, the Dutch government came to the same conclusion. It rightfully determined that “cryptography plays a key role in the technological security of the digital domain”. It further stated that there were “no viable options to weaken encryption technology in general without compromising the safety of digital systems that utilise it”. Put differently, creating a backdoor for the police also creates a backdoor for criminals. Because of this, the Dutch cabinet argues that it is “undesirable to implement legislative measures that would hamper the development, availability and use of encryption in the Netherlands”.

Then again, the Netherlands is only a small country and much of its legislation is determined by the decisions made at the European level. It is therefore heartening to see that the European Parliament passed a resolution in early November 2017, calling on the European Commission and the member states to “enhance security measures, such as encryption and other technologies, to further strengthen security and privacy”. The Parliament also explicitly asked EU Member States to refrain from “enforcing measures that may weaken the networks or services that encryption providers offer, such as creating or encouraging ‘backdoors’”.

The European Commission has also spoken out on the issue. It recently published “Eleventh progress report towards an effective and genuine Security Union”, which lists measures meant to make Europe safer. One of these measures entails supporting law enforcement in dealing with encrypted information. However, the report immediately adds that this should be done “without prohibiting, limiting or weakening encryption”, since “encryption is essential to ensure cybersecurity and the protection of personal data”.

This definitely does not mean it will be smooth sailing from here on. Political positions change rapidly. The Dutch government, for example, states explicitly that weakening encryption is undesirable “at this moment in time”. All it takes for our political leaders to collectively lose their resolve is one serious terrorist attack after which law enforcement and security services investigations are hindered by encryption. It is also hard to predict how Dutch and European lawmakers will respond when pressure mounts from France, Germany or the United States.

The biggest threat, however, is probably far more subtle. Businesses are often pressured to “take their social responsibility” in fighting whatever is seen to be evil at that particular time. They are told: “You don’t want to be seen as a safe haven for terrorists, do you?” The consequence of this is that far too often, these businesses agree to make their digital infrastructure more vulnerable, without any checks or balances. This cooperative attitude is of course adopted “willingly” – but not without pressure from legislation or fear of damage to their reputation. The proposal of the European Commission in its recent policy document to create a “better and more structured collaboration between authorities, service providers and other industry partners” should be read in this light.

The European Commission struggles to find a position on encryption (31.10.2017)
https://edri.org/european-commission-struggles-find-position-encryption/

EU’s plans on encryption: What is needed? (16.10.2017)
https://edri.org/eus-plans-on-encryption-what-is-needed/

EDRi delivers paper on encryption workarounds and human rights (20.09.2017)
https://edri.org/edri-paper-encryption-workarounds/

EDRi position paper on encryption (25.01.2016)
https://www.edri.org/files/20160125-edri-crypto-position-paper.pdf

Encryption – debunking the myths (03.05.2017)
https://edri.org/encryption-debunking-myths/

(Contribution by Rejo Zenger, EDRi-member Bits of Freedom, the Netherlands; translation by David Uiterwaal)

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
31 Oct 2017

The privacy movement and dissent: Protest

By Guest author

This is the fourth blogpost of a series, originally published by EDRi member Bits of Freedom, that explains how the activists of a Berlin-based privacy movement operate, organise, and express dissent. The series is inspired by a thesis by Loes Derks van de Ven, which describes the privacy movement as she encountered it from 2013 to 2015.*

In order to describe, analyse, and understand the ways in which the privacy movement uses protest, it is important to bear in mind the internet plays an all-encompassing role. First, we can distinguish between actions that are internet-supported and actions that are internet-based. Protests that are internet-supported are traditional means of protest that the internet has made easier to coordinate and organise, whereas protests that are internet-based could not have happened without the internet. Second, there is the height of the threshold for people to become involved. A high threshold means that participating entails a high risk and level of commitment, while a low threshold means a low risk and level of commitment. In the privacy movement, internet-supported protest with a low threshold and internet-based protest with a high threshold are the most common forms of protest.

----------------------------------------------------------------- Support our work - make a recurrent donation! https://edri.org/supporters/ -----------------------------------------------------------------

Internet-supported protest with a low threshold

The most common types of internet-supported protest with a low threshold that we find in the privacy movement are asking for donations and organising legal protest demonstrations.

The internet has given an impulse to donations: whereas in the analogue age the costs to coordinate such actions would outweigh the benefits, in the digital age collecting money has become much more accessible and easier. The Courage Foundation, for instance, collects donations for the legal defense of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden and Lauri Love. Many other European organisations similarly offer their members and supporters the opportunity to make donations. However, it is worth noting that specifically in the case of the privacy movement, the threshold for donating money is higher than usual, as whistleblowing is a politically sensitive subject and community members have a heightened knowledge of privacy concerns associated with online payments. It is not surprising that donating via the anonymous digital currency Bitcoin is an option many organisations offer.

When it comes to demonstrations, the internet has also been an enhancing factor, as it has made the spreading and exchanging of information about the goal and practical details of a demonstration much easier. This also proves to be the case for demonstrations organised by the privacy movement. A fitting example of how the internet can help rapidly spread information and the effect that has on protest is the Netzpolitik demonstration held in Berlin on 1 August 2015. The announcement by Netzpolitik, a German organisation concerned with digital rights and culture, that two of their reporters and one source had been charged with treason, made thousands of people gather in the streets of Berlin to protest for the freedom of the press.

Here, too, it is worth considering how low the threshold for demonstrating actually is for activists within the privacy movement. In the analogue age it was difficult for governments to get a clear image of who exactly took part in a demonstration. Modern technology, however, has changed and continues to change the game. For instance, after participating in a protest, protesters in the Ukraine received a text message from their government that stated, “Dear Subscriber, you have been registered as a participant in a mass disturbance”. Something similar happened in Michigan, USA, in 2010. After a labour protest the local police asked for information about every cellphone that had been near the protest. Thus, the height of the risk that is involved in these sorts of protest is definitely worth reconsidering, especially when reflecting on a movement with so much awareness of (digital) surveillance.

Internet-based protest with a high threshold

Internet-based actions with a high threshold include protest websites, alternative media, culture jamming, and hacktivism.

Protest websites are websites that “promote social causes and chiefly mobilise support”. The privacy movement is involved in a number of these sorts of websites, for example edwardsnowden.com and chelseamanning.org, which are dedicated to whistleblowers and explain how supporters can help them, and savetheinternet.com, which asks supporters to take action in protecting net neutrality.

Alternative media have proven to be a crucial part of how the privacy movement voices dissent and “bears witness”, as the internet has made it possible to circumvent mass media and has reduced the effort to spread information to a large audience. A well-known example of alternative media, emerging from the privacy movement, is The Intercept, an online news organisation co-founded by Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Jeremy Scahill. This newspaper aims, according to its website, to “[produce] fearless, adversarial journalism” and focuses on stories that provide transparency about government and corporate institutions’ behaviour.

Culture jamming is a form of protest where corporate identity and communications is appropriated for the protesters’ own goals, using tactics such as “billboard pirating, physical and virtual graffiti, website alteration, [and] spoof sites”. An example for spoof sites is the Twitter account: @NSA_PR, or NSA Public Relations in full, a reaction to the actual official Twitter account the public relations department of the US National Security Agency that was launched at the end of 2013. The spoof account often responds to recent surveillance and security issues in a humorous way. For example, when WikiLeaks published documents about the NSA’s interception of French leaders, NSA Public Relations posted, “Parlez-vous Français?”.

Hacktivism is the last form of internet-based protest with a high threshold. It is defined as “confrontational activities like DoS attacks via automated email floods, website defacements, or the use of malicious software like viruses and worms”. These activities are not commonly used within the privacy movement. Instead a “”digitally correct” form of hacktivism is practised. Digitally correct hacktivism designs computer programs that help confirm and accomplish their political aims. Of the many programs that exist, two of the most well-known and widely used programs for this kind of protest are the Tor Project web browser and Pretty Good Privacy. Both programs are designed to secure the user’s privacy. Whereas it is debatable whether direct action hacktivism is legal or not, the use of the Tor browser and email encryption are, of course.

The digital age has undeniably affected the way in which social movements protest. Traditional forms of protest have become internet-supported, but additionally there are also forms of protest being used that cannot even exist without the internet. This is even more the case for the privacy movement. For a movement that is so intertwined with the internet, we see that it is difficult to even make the distinction between online and offline protest, and that it comes up with its own specific alterations to already existing forms of protest.

The series was originally published by EDRi member Bits of Freedom at https://www.bof.nl/tag/meeting-the-privacy-movement/

Dissent in the privacy movement: whistleblowing, art and protest (12.07.2017)
https://edri.org/dissent-in-the-privacy-movement-whistleblowing-art-and-protest/

The privacy movement and dissent: Whistleblowing (23.08.2017)
https://edri.org/the-privacy-movement-and-dissent-whistleblowing/

The privacy movement and dissent: Art (04.10.2017)
https://edri.org/the-privacy-movement-and-dissent-art/

(Contribution by Loes Derks van de Ven; Adaptation by Maren Schmid, EDRi intern)

* This research was finalised in 2015 and does not take into account the changes within the movement that have occurred since then.


Sources:
Della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. Social movements. An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Van Aelst, Peter, and Jeroen van Laer. “Internet and Social Movement Action Repertoires. Opportunities and Limitations.” Information, Communication & Society 13:8 (2010): 1146-1171.

EDRi-gram_subscribe_banner

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
25 Oct 2017

Tell the European Parliament to stand up for e-Privacy!

By Diego Naranjo

On 26 October, the European Parliament (EP) will decide on a key proposal to protect your privacy and security online. This step consists in confirming (or not) the Parliament’s mandate to negotiate the e-Privacy Regulation with the Council of the European Union.

This vote has been demanded as part of an effort to either water down or completely destroy the proposal. As a result, we (very exceptionally) support the mandate being granted.

Do you want to protect the privacy of millions of people in the next generations? Then take action now and contact the Members of the European Parliament (MEP) from your country in order to be able to make sure that the European Parliament approves the mandate. You can:

  1. Call your MEP using the free call system (developed by La Quadrature Du Net) and ask them to vote on Thursday 26 October to support the mandate for the e-Privacy trilogues.
  2. Tweet to the MEPs from your own country now (and also other MEPs, ideally in their own language). Use the hashtag #ePrivacy! You could tweet for example along the lines:

Dear <@MEP>, please vote for a mandate for the #ePrivacy #trilogues. Good for citizens, for trust, for innovation, for competition!

You can find below the list of MEPs’ Twitter handles for each Member State:

The Regulation applies to confidentiality of communications, online and offline tracking and device security. It has been the subject of a huge lobbying campaign by industry associations peddling a range of outlandish claims including that the Regulation would ban advertising and would even be responsible for “killing the internet” (seriously).

e-Privacy Directive: Frequently Asked Questions
https://edri.org/epd-faq/

e-Privacy Mythbusting (25.10.2017)
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/ePrivacy_mythbusting.pdf

Quick guide on the proposal of an e-Privacy Regulation (09.03.2017)
https://edri.org/files/epd-revision/ePR_EDRi_quickguide_20170309.pdf

Last-ditch attack on e-Privacy Regulation in the European Parliament (24.10.2017)
https://edri.org/last-ditch-attack-on-e-privacy-regulation-in-the-european-parliament/

Dear MEPs: We need you to protect our privacy online! (05.10.2017)
https://edri.org/dear-meps-we-need-you-to-protect-our-privacy-online/

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close
24 Oct 2017

Last-ditch attack on e-Privacy Regulation in the European Parliament

By Joe McNamee

The ECR, the right-wing, Eurosceptic political group in the European Parliament has joined forces with German Conservatives, Axel Voss and Monika Hohlmeier, as well as the Danish Liberal Morten Løkkegaard to try to overturn progress made on the e-Privacy Regulation.

The Regulation applies to confidentiality of communications, online and offline tracking and device security. It has been the subject of a huge lobbying campaign by industry associations peddling a range of outlandish claims including that the Regulation would ban advertising and would even be responsible for “killing the internet” (seriously).

As the myths and mythology that Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are being confronted with every day are getting more and more ridiculous, on 24 October, we wrote to all 751 MEPs. However, to avoid the e-mail getting too long, we restricted ourselves to the six most outlandish myths:

  1. that e-Privacy bans online advertising (advertising existed before online surveillance)
  2. that e-Privacy is bad for democracy (tracking has manipulated elections)
  3. that e-Privacy is bad for media pluralism and quality of journalism (tracking is the business model of fake news)
  4. that e-Privacy prevents the fight against illegal content (the telecoms companies made this false argument about net neutrality. It wasn’t true and still isn’t)
  5. that e-Privacy helps Google and Facebook (no, seriously, the lobbyists are actually saying this)
  6. that we need a level playing field (actually that one is true, we need everyone to be regulated fairly)

You can read our letter here.

Tell your MEPs you want a strong e-Privacy Regulation – as agreed by the European Parliament Committee on Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Find your MEPs here.

Twitter_tweet_and_follow_banner

close