The latest EDRi-gram

*In this issue, Europe's "Safe Harbour" was never safe and was never a harbour. Sounded good on paper if you'd never seen a screen, though.

======================================================================

EDRi-gram

fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe

EDRi-gram 13.19, 7 October 2015

Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/13-19/

1. Unclear “net neutrality” proposal returns to European Parliament
2. Finland: New surveillance law threatens fundamental rights
3. CCC campaigns to provide Internet access to refugees in Germany
4. Fifteen years late, Safe Harbor hits the rocks
5. Netherlands: New proposals for dragnet surveillance underway
6. EU Commission: IT companies to fix “terrorist use of the Internet”
7. EU Commission: IT companies to fix “hate speech on the Internet”
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About

Following the conclusion of an unclear compromise on net neutrality and
mobile phone roaming charges earlier this year, the Telecoms Single
Market Regulation proposal has finally been submitted to the European
Parliament for final approval.

Net neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be
treated equally by Internet access providers. By ensuring equal access
to the full, unfettered Internet, net neutrality enables freedom of
expression and of information online.

In the last week of October, the Parliament will be asked to vote on a
text that contains positive principles prohibiting most - but not all -
discrimination on the network. Several forms of discriminatory,
restrictive behaviour could find refuge in the vagueness of the text.
This is "policy-making-lite": decision-making with key decisions removed.

"The European Parliament has a very simple choice," said Joe McNamee,
Executive Director of European Digital Rights. "Either it accepts
amendments to give a real and predictable meaning to the text, or leave
it to national regulators to decide if, how and when Europeans will get
net neutrality," he added.

For example:
- The institutions agreed that "specialised services" (that are treated
in a non-neutral way) would only be allowed if special treatment is
"necessary", but then agreed to define "necessary" as not necessarily
meaning "necessary".
- While supporting "neutrality", the text authorises different types of
traffic to be treated differently. In practice, this could mean that
encrypted data from especially smaller, less-established content
providers may be communicated more slowly because encryption makes it
difficult to tell that the data is, in fact, video data.
- Part of the text appears to support the use of download limits to
discriminate against some online services (blocking them when the
download limit is reached) while another part clearly says that no
content should be blocked.

"Together with our coalition partners, we are urging all European
citizens to take action now via https://savetheinternet.eu to help
bringing these last missing pieces to the attention of the European
Parliament," continued Joe McNamee.

Background:
- In September 2013, the European Commission produced a "not" neutrality
proposal.
- In April 2014, the European Parliament voted for a strong, clear text
which defended the neutrality of the Internet, for the good of free
speech, competition and innovation.
- In June 2015, after months of total intransigence from the EU Council,
that opposed net neutrality, a "compromise" was found through the
adoption of unclear and unpredictable language.

Net Neutrality: Primary document pool
https://edri.org/net-neutrality-primary-document-source/

Net Neutrality: Document pool II
https://edri.org/net-neutrality-document-pool-2/

Finnish EDRi member Electronic Frontier Finland (Effi) is gravely
concerned over a draft law on Internet surveillance. The bill that the
country’s current government is in the process of preparing will grant
the military and the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (Supo) the
authority to conduct electronic mass surveillance for military and
civilian intelligence purposes. On 1 October 2015, four ministers held a
press conference to announce the bill. What they said did nothing to
allay fears regarding the upcoming law.

Especially worrisome are the government’s increasing indications that
Finland’s constitution will be altered to permit mass surveillance by
the country’s intelligence service. To have the constitutional
protection of the secrecy of communications weakened or even denied in
order to make way for mass surveillance is unprecedented in Finland.

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

"Minister of the Interior Petteri Orpo simply stated in his opinion that
the prospective law does not pose a danger to an ordinary person," said
Effi's Executive Director Nomi Byström. "Surely the minister would not
imply that for example the mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden
did not pose any threats to citizens, would he? I very much hope that
Finland will not end up having such collaboration with the US National
Security Agency (NSA) that Finns will be subjected to the abuses on a
similar scale, or that no other organ will adopt similar methods and
obstruct the rule of law. Especially, I hope that no country or its
intelligence agencies are seeking to pressure Finland in the preparation
for the bill.”

There are extremely worrisome cases of inefficient, intrusive mass
surveillance in the world which, while being useless, have succeeded in
violating fundamental rights on a massive scale. In Finland, matters
have not been helped due to the current secrecy regarding the
advancement of the bill. "The preparations have taken place behind
closed doors, and at a scarily fast pace," said Tapani Tarvainen, Vice
Chairman of Effi. "Now the government has promised to introduce more
transparency. I hope this is what will actually happen, and that the
citizens' point of view will also be genuinely heard during the entire
drafting process, instead of just presenting the country with a
ready-made package to be either accepted or rejected."

Finland should focus far more on data security. In the United States,
despite widespread mass surveillance, the data of over twenty million
employees were hacked in the OPM scandal, and the fingerprints of over
five million people were stolen due to inadequate data security. In
Finland it was revealed in late 2013 that the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs had been subject to cyber espionage. This too could have been
prevented with proper data security. An effective law on data security
would far better address key concerns that legislation on mass
surveillance is now expected to solve.

From the point of view of citizens' rights, the essential elements that
the prospective law is to pay heed to are:

1. Warrants permitting surveillance that may be granted to the Finnish
   Security Intelligence Service (Supo) are to be based on a valid criminal
   suspicion. Supo already has extensive powers to gather intelligence
   regarding suspects. Any extension of powers should be linked to a
   warrant based on suspicion, and warrantless surveillance is not to be
   permitted. Existing legislation, such as the Coercive Measures Act, is
   sufficient.
2. The suggested legislation should respect fundamental civil rights;
   particularly the rights to confidential communications, privacy, data
   protection and the freedom of expression. These rights are protected by
   the constitution of Finland, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
   European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the
   International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Also the Court of
   Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in the Digital Rights Ireland
   case in April 2014 that mass collection and retention of data without a
   valid criminal suspicion violates the principle of proportionality.

A collision between the constitution and the proposed law is to be
expected. However, to draw the conclusion that it is the constitution
that should give way is both misleading and dangerous. An ordinary law
is not – and should not be – on a par with the constitution. To
undermine the constitution in favour of legalised mass surveillance will
have major destabilising consequences that are far wider than are now
either understood or taken into consideration. However, even if the
constitution was to be altered, there is no escaping the fact that the
country is bound and must respect its international human rights
obligations as well as the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

"Minister of Transport and Communications Anne Berner stated during the
press conference that the same rules that we follow in the real world
also apply in the digital world. And she is entirely right: Just as it
is not acceptable to systematically open the envelopes of all snail mail
letters to search for possibly suspicious words in them, analysing the
contents of electronic communications should not be permissible either,"
stated Effi's Chairman Timo Karjalainen.

Surveillance law threatens fundamental rights (only in Finnish, 02.10.2015)
https://effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/tiedustelulaki-uhkaa-perusoikeuksia-2015-10-02

The Constitution of Finland
https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1999/en19990731.pdf

(Contribution by Nomi Byström, EDRi member Effi, Finland)

German EDRi member Chaos Computer Club (CCC), along with free network
associations Freifunk Berlin and the Förderverein freie Netzwerke, is
running a fundraising campaign in support of the non-profit organisation
Refugees Emancipation (RE). The project, initiated by asylum-seekers,
aims to prevent the isolation and enhance the connectivity of refugees
in Germany by enabling their access to the Internet. To do this, RE has
established several self-organised Internet cafés and offers computer
courses in refugee accommodations.

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

The objective of the fundraising campaign is to finance the work of RE
for at least one year. In concrete terms, the money raised will go
towards financing telecommunication costs, office supplies, tools and
repairs for the existing five Internet cafés, as well as the rent for
offices, transportation costs and allowances for the coordinators of the
project. In the best case scenario, the project will be expanded to
establish new Internet cafés in refugee camps and centres. At the time
of writing, 32 % of the target sum had been raised, with another 46 524
euros pending.

The initiative of RE, although already established in 2000, is
particularly important in light of the current refugee crisis. For
refugees, having access to the Internet is not only a means of
communicating and reconnecting with remote family members, but also an
important tool for their social integration in their country of
destination. The Internet provides essential access to translation
services and offers information on asylum procedures, which are often
complicated and subject to bureaucratic complexity. Given that in
Germany Internet access remains scant and hard to come by for the
majority of refugees, the initiative by RE is significant.

Fundraising campaign for Refugees Emancipation: Internet cafes and
computer courses for refugees (only in German, 01.10.2015)
https://netzpolitik.org/2015/spendenkampagne-von-refugees-emancipation-internetcafes-und-computerkurse-fuer-fluechtlinge/

Homegrown Net Café Reconnects Refugees, Families (28.10.2003)
http://www.dw.com/en/homegrown-net-caf%C3%A9-reconnects-refugees-families/a-1015727

Internet for Refugees by Refugees, donation page
http://support.refugeesemancipation.com/en/

(Contribution by Inka Kotilainen, EDRi intern)

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed what
the European Commission has been denying for the past fifteen years -
the "Safe Harbor" agreement on transferring data to the United States is
invalid.

"Safe Harbor was flawed in principle and flawed in practice" said Joe
McNamee, Executive Director of European Digital Rights. "After last
year's data retention ruling, this is the second time in two years that
the Court of Justice has struck down an instrument that the European
Commission had spent years defending."

The case was precipitated by revelations of mass surveillance in the
United States, which led to the discovery of the National Security
Agency's abuse of both the judicial ("systematic misleading of judges")
and legislative ("unbounded interpretation of the [Patriot] act that
Congress never intended") arms of the United States Government. While
the US Mission to the EU has now confirmed that there is, apparently,
"no mass surveillance of anyone", there are some who may be sceptical.

In reality, however, the case is much deeper than "just" mass
surveillance. The European Commission has never had the political
courage to recognise that Safe Harbor was never safe. Even before the
Snowden revelations, reports from the Commission itself and from
independent research showed over and over again that the entire
framework was inadequate. The European Commission and the businesses
that used Safe Harbor to export data to the United States hoped that the
open secret would remain a secret. Businesses that were using Safe
Harbor could have done more than hope that a case would never be brought
to the Court, businesses could have done more than pluck absurd numbers
out of thin air as to the cost of abandoning this unsustainable
agreement. Their choice was to take the risk that this unsustainable
agreement could be sustained. They were wrong.

Press release from the Court of Justice of the European Union (06.10.2015)
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf

Safe Harbor: European Court Advocate General says Agreement should be
declared invalid (23.09.2015)
https://edri.org/safe-harbor-european-court-advocate-general-says-agreement-should-be-declared-invalid/

Revelations on Safe Harbour violations go to hearing at EU Court
(11.03.2015)
https://edri.org/safe-harbour-violations-hearing-eu-court/

Finally! Safe Harbour Agreement under question by EU commissioner
(31.07.2013)
https://edri.org/edrigramnumber11-15safe-harbour-agreement-under-question/

In the Netherlands, online consultations by the government have been
concluded on far-reaching proposals that foresee the expansion of
surveillance powers of the intelligence services and the creation of new
surveillance powers for the tax authorities (“Wet op de inlichtingen- en
veiligheidsdiensten” and “Concept-Besluit Bijzondere vergaring
nummergegevens telecommunicatie”). If proposed and enacted into law,
they will severely threaten fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of
assembly and association, as well as the right to fair trial, religion
and free speech.

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

A few proposals from each draft law:
- Intelligence services will be authorised to, using a technical aid,
wiretap, receive, record and listen to any form of telecommunications or
data transfer via a computerised system.
- Intelligence services can compel anyone to help decrypt data,
conversations, telecommunications or data transfers.
- Dragnet surveillance of all telecommunications as well as wholesale
gathering of metadata, including location data, will be introduced.
- The intelligence services will be granted the ability to break into
computers of third parties, including non-suspects, to be able to
monitor actual targets, without safeguards for fundamental rights or
even acknowledging the potential for collateral damage.
- The draft laws lack almost completely the safeguards to preserve
client-attorney privilege, medical confidentiality etc.
- Given that intelligence services have the purpose of preserving the
rule of law in a democratic society, the draft proposal is more of an
acute threat to the Netherlands than any terrorist threat.

In the case of the draft proposal for the tax authorities, the
consultation on the tax law was about granting the special law
enforcement units the authority to use so-called IMSI-catchers. Again,
this will result in overbroad surveillance. While tax evasion is
harmful, the ends justify the means even less than in the case of the
expansion of intelligence powers.

The consultation on the bill for a new Intelligence and Security
Services Act (only in Dutch, consultation ended on 01.09.2015)
https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/wiv

Bits of Freedom, response to the consultation on the bill for a new
Intelligence and Security Services Act (only in Dutch, 01.09.2015)
https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/20150901-BoF-reactie-consultatie-wiv1.pdf

The consultation on the bill to grant the Fiscal Information and
Investigation Service the authority to use (their own) IMSI-catchers
(only in Dutch, consultation ended on 18.09.2015)
https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/bijzondere_vergaring_nummergegevens_telecommunicatie

Bits of Freedom, response to the consultation on the bill to grant the
Fiscal Information and Investigation Service the authority to use (their
own) IMSI-catchers (only in Dutch, 14.09.2015)
https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/20150914-reactie-consultatie-imsi-catchers-voor-fiod.pdf

Dutch intel bill proposes non-specific (“bulk”) interception powers for
“any form of telecom or data transfer”, incl. domestic, plus required
cooperation from “providers of communication services” (02.07.2015)
https://blog.cyberwar.nl/2015/07/dutch-intelligence-bill-proposes-non-specific-bulk-interception-powers-for-any-form-of-telecom-or-data-transfer-incl-domestic/

(Contribution by Walter van Holst, EDRi member Vrijschrift, Netherlands)

In August 2015, the European Commission confirmed to EDRi that it's
preparing to partner with US online companies to set up an “EU Internet
Forum” which apparently includes discussing the monitoring and
censorship of communications in Europe. Participants of this Forum
include Facebook, Google/YouTube, Ask.fm, Microsoft and Twitter. The
first meeting was held on 24 July 2015 and focused on “reducing
accessibility to terrorist content”.

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

The Commission seems to believe that online companies are the magic
solution to a great variety of societal problems and illegal activities.
Therefore it doesn't only regularly meet with online industry to fight
terrorism, but also hate speech, alleged copyright infringements and so
on. This ”EU Internet Forum” is now being set up in parallel to the
meetings organised by EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender
Equality Věra Jourová between “IT companies, business, national
authorities and civil society” to “tackle” online hate speech - and two
consultations that aim at assessing the role of online platforms.

In a response to an “access to documents” request, the Commission sent
us a summary of the preparatory discussion of the EU Internet Forum on
24 July, the minutes of a Ministerial dinner in 2014 to respond to the
“terrorist use of the Internet”, and the (heavily censored) list of
participants of both events (see the links documents below). The
Commission was not able to send us a list of planned meetings of the
Forum, as “no such documents have been identified”. The summary of the
first meeting however mentions the official launch of the ministerial EU
Internet Forum planned for the end of the year.

A quick look at the documents reveals that the impact, activities,
scope, definitions, and unintended side-effects of this Forum are
extremely unclear.

1. Unclear problem definition:
It's remarkable that at no point the question on the motivations for the
launch of such Forum seemed to have been raised. It's simply assumed
that “the process of radicalisation takes place more and more through
the internet”, as one Minister stated during the meeting in 2014 and
wobbling on top of that assumption is the assumption that ad hoc actions
by internet companies can solve the assumed problem. However, the recent
terrorist attacks in France and Belgium were, according to the
investigations of law enforcement agencies, committed by terrorists who
were not radicalised online. Moreover, experts agree that videos
distributed through social media play a minimal role in the recruitment
process for jihadists.

2. Unclear activity:
It's also extremely unclear what companies are expected to do in order
to “reduce terrorist content” and what the legal basis would be for such
an activity. The summary of the meeting in June 2015 states that the
process of deleting material from the Internet “will only work if the
companies themselves have robust terms and conditions in place”. If it
is to encourage them to use their terms of service “ban” what is already
illegal, in addition to banning legal content (for example images of
female nipples on Facebook or Apple's online store), then this would
mean that online platforms can more easily remove content without having
to actually accuse the individual posting it of doing anything illegal.

3. Unclear vocabulary:
The the terms used throughout meeting summaries have not been defined:
What constitutes “terrorist content”, “terrorist propaganda” or
“terrorist material”, and what is the “terrorist use of the Internet”?
Moreover, there seems to be no concern about Internet providers not
having the expertise to assess whether material is illegal or not.
Therefore, the removal of content by companies that are placed in the
position to judge whether content hypothetically falls under ill-defined
“terrorist content” leads to a high risk of violation of the freedom of
communication. One of the reasons that led to the failure of the CleanIT
project was the harsh criticism regarding the lack of clarity on the
term “terrorist use of the Internet”. Neither Member States nor the
Commission seem to have learned from the failed experience.

4. Unclear impact:
Nothing in the documents suggests that there has been a prior assessment
of the impact of the actions that should, according to the Commission
and Member States, be taken by the private sector. Will companies'
decisions on how to reduce accessibility to “terrorist content” actually
be effective to achieve the objective of fighting terrorism? Nobody knows.

5. Unclear side-effects:
The meeting summaries also show a clear lack of concern for the
questions whether it's appropriate or not to use the coercion or
encouragement of IT companies to delete allegedly illegal/unwelcome
content, whether there should be safeguards to protect legal but
challenging speech, whether there is a risk of counterproductive impacts
on either the public policy objectives being addressed or, indeed,
competition and innovation.

The Commission is about to officially launch an initiative that lacks a
clear definition, scope and impact assessment. What does this say about
the prevention and fight against terrorism in Europe and the tackling of
the underlying societal problems? At least the Commission can tell the
press and the Member States that it's “doing something”.

Our access to documents request
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/participants_in_the_eu_internet

Documents on the EU Internet Forum received on by the Commission
https://edri.org/files/FAO_EU-IT-Forum-letter_20151006.pdf
https://edri.org/files/FAO_EU-IT-Forum_01_20151006.pdf
https://edri.org/files/FAO_EU-IT-Forum_02_20151006.pdf
https://edri.org/files/FAO_EU-IT-Forum_03_20151006.pdf
https://edri.org/files/FAO_EU-IT-Forum_04_20151006.pdf

Terrorists behind the attacks in France are not radicalised “online”
(only in French, 26.08.2015)
http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2015/08/26/les-terroristes-ayant-agi-en-france-ne-se-sont-pas-radicalises-en-ligne_4737368_4408996.html

Kouachi-Coulibaly: the paths of the Parisien jihadists (only in French,
15.01.2015)
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/15/kouachi-coulibaly-les-chemins-du-jihad-parisien_1181644

EDRi: RIP CleanIT (29.01.2013)
https://edri.org/rip-cleanit/

(Contribution by Kirsten Fiedler, EDRi)

At the Colloquium on Fundamental Rights on 2 October 2015, EU
Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Věra Jourová
gave a widely-reported speech on “hate speech”. At the meeting, she
announced that she was organising a meeting between “IT companies,
business, national authorities and civil society” in order to “tackle”
online hate speech.

With the drive for IT companies to bring an end to terrorism, copyright
infringement, hate speech and child pornography, one could be forgiven
for getting the impression that their role in society is as a
benevolent, all-seeing force to fight the ills of the world. As a
result, it is not surprising that these companies are listed separately
from “business” in Commissioner Jourová's speech. In reality, however,
they are businesses. They are businesses with no law enforcement powers,
with a business interest in making money, in advertising, in data
processing, and in minimising negative press coverage.

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

From a public relations perspective, Commissioner Jourová is definitely
working with a winning formula. Her colleague with responsibility for
Home Affairs, Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos is in the process of
doing exactly the same thing with the same initiative with regard to the
fight against terrorism. He proposed launching an “Internet forum” (that
had already been initiated by the Council of the European Union) for
Internet companies to fight terrorism. The initiative was announced by
the Commissioner in January, June and July this year.

One of the ways that pressure can be placed on Internet companies
regarding online hate speech, is to encourage them to use their terms of
service to “ban” illegal messages, in addition to their own standard
terms that ban various types of legal content. This means that the
platforms can more easily remove any content – including illegal content
– without having to actually accuse the individual posting it of doing
anything illegal. That's easiest for the platform, because an accusation
of law-breaking would imply additional obligations (reporting, etc), and
it's easiest for the EU Member State and the Commission because
“somebody is doing something” to address the problem. It is easier for
the person uploading the hate speech, because the only “punishment” will
be the deletion of a comment, which can easily be posted again the next
day and the day after. Indeed, researchers from the Catholic University
of Leuven found that illegal hate speech is usually spread in the hope
that it will be read, reported and condemned. So, the notion of an
arbitrary, lawless game of “whack-a-mole” of content being uploaded,
reported, checked, deleted, re-uploaded, reported, checked and deleted
again creates an obvious, but apparently irrelevant, risk of
counterproductive effects.

These discussions (terrorism, led by the European Commission
Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs and hate speech, led
by Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers) are happening in
parallel with two parallel consultations (on “platforms”, led by the
Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
and, shortly, IP enforcement, led by the Directorate-General for
Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs) on the role of
Internet intermediaries and liability for illegal or unauthorised online
content. In the context of these four parallel discussions, there is no
debate of whether it's appropriate to use coercion of Internet
intermediaries to delete unwelcome or possibly illegal content, whether
there should be safeguards to protect legal but challenging speech,
whether there is a risk of counterproductive impacts on either the
public policy objectives being addressed or, indeed, competition and
innovation.

On the other hand, is there any need to worry about the wisdom of
companies like Facebook? Is it really that arbitrary that, at one
moment, they had policies that prohibited female nipples (or
representations thereof), but permitted male nipples and, if surrounded
by appropriate commentary, beheading videos?

Catholic University of Leuven presentation: Media Pluralism and
Diversity and Combating "hate speech" (26.03.2012)
http://livestre.am/1oc0h (from 1:59.00)

Remarks by Commissioner Avramopoulos after informal Home Affairs Council
in Luxembourg (09.07.2015)
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5342_en.htm

Facebook lets beheading clips return to social network (21.10.2013)
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24608499

#FreeTheNipple uses male nipples to protest Facebook’s nudity policy
(07.07.2015)
http://nypost.com/2015/07/07/freethenipple-uses-male-nipples-to-protest-facebooks-nudity-policy/

(Contribution by Joe McNamee, EDRi)

Donate for Internet cafes & computer workshops for Refugees!
Help refugees to access the Internet, to stay in touch relatives and
friends abroad, read the news from their homecountry, use translation
services, get informed about their new city, it's laws and their rights.
https://www.betterplace.org/en/projects/20601-internet-cafes-computer-workshops-for-refugees

Save the Internet!
Your freedom online is threatened by an EU proposal. The fight for the
open Internet is happening right now in Brussels. Contact the European
Parliament!
https://savetheinternet.eu/

Support our work for your digital rights!
European Digital Rights fights for your right to privacy, freedom of
expression, modernisation of copyright rules, legal protection for net
neutrality and against new European proposals for mass surveillance. Our
work is only possible with the continued financial support of donors
like you!
https://edri.org/supporters/

Mass surveillance in Germany rebuked by Council of Europe (02.10.2015)
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/justice-home-affairs/mass-surveillance-germany-rebuked-council-europe-318164

The challenge to Safe Harbour - a totem for something much more
fundamental (01.10.2015)
http://pwc.blogs.com/data_protection/2015/10/the-challenge-to-safe-harbour-a-totem-for-something-much-more-fundamental-.html

Facebook hopes renaming internet.org app will shut net neutrality
critics up (28.09.2015)
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150921/12385832320/facebook-hopes-renaming-internetorg-app-will-shut-net-neutrality-critics-up.shtml

The Council challenges the right of the European Ombudsman to conduct an
inquiry into secret "trilogues" (24.09.2015)
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2015/sep/eu-omb-council-response.htm

10.10.2015, Berlin, Germany
Stop TTIP CETA Demo – protest for a fair world trade
http://ttip-demo.de/

13.10.2015, Strasbourg, France
Freedom of Expression: Still a precondition for democracy?
http://a.cs.coe.int/team81/mig/Conference_Freedom_of_expression_Strasbourg_2015/

15.10.2015, Brussels, Belgium
Big Brother Awards Belgium
https://bigbrotherawards.be

16.10.2015, Brussels, Belgium
EDRi members meetup

16.10.2015, Brussels, Belgium
Freedom not Fear
https://www.freedomnotfear.org/

28.10.2015, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Dutch Big Brother Awards 2015
https://bigbrotherawards.nl/en_GB/over/

30.10.2015, Barcelona, Spain
FCForum’15
http://fcforum.net/en/

30.10.2015, Barcelona, Spain
Free Culture Forum 2015

04.11.2015, Warsaw, Poland
CopyCamp Conference 2015 – Understanding the Social Impacts of Copyright
http://copycamp.pl/en/

05.11.2015, Warsaw, Poland
The School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright
https://edri.org/the-school-of-rocking-eu-copyright/

06.11.2015, London, United Kingdom
Mozilla Festival
https://2015.mozillafestival.org/

06.11.2015, Erlangen, Germany
FIfF-Conference 2015: Commercialisation of the Soci(et)al – Markets and
Power in the Age of Total Datafication
http://www.fiff.de/

17.11.2015, Brussels, Belgium
EUhackathon
http://www.2015.euhackathon.eu/

27.12.2015, Hamburg, Germany
32C3
https://events.ccc.de

EDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in
Europe. Currently EDRi has 33 members based or with offices in 19
different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active
interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to
share knowledge and awareness through the EDRi-gram.

All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips
are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and are
visible on the EDRi website.

Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. See the full text at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Newsletter editor: Heini Jarvinen edrigram@edri.org

Information about EDRi and its members: http://www.edri.org/

European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in
the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider
making a private donation.
https://edri.org/donate/

- EDRI-gram subscription information
subscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: subscribe
You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
Unsubscribe by e-mail
To: edri-news-request@mailman.edri.org
Subject: unsubscribe

- EDRI-gram in Macedonian
EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay.
Translations are provided by Metamorphosis
http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/mk/vesti/edri

- EDRI-gram in German
EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are
provided by Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian
Association for Internet Users
http://www.unwatched.org/

- Newsletter archive
Back issues are available at:
http://www.edri.org/newsletters/

- Help
Please ask edrigram@edri.org if you have any problems with subscribing
or unsubscribing.