*Some interesting hints here on what the forthcoming European Union Great Firewall is going to look like. They used to be pretty tentative about these initiatives, but with Trump in power, Britain calving off, China crushing it and Russia taking burglar tools to the doors and windows, Europe is gonna get a lot. older about a European post-internet regime.
======================================================================
EDRi-gram
fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
EDRi-gram 15.14, 12 July 2017
Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram/15-14/
=======================================================================
Contents1. Latest copyright votes: Filtering, blocking & half-baked compromises
2. Commission report on child protection online lacks facts & evidence
3. Net Neutrality: BEREC misses opportunity to lead the way
4. Total information awareness for law enforcement, no data protection
5. Dissent in the privacy movement: whistleblowing, art and protest
6. Recommended Action
7. Recommended Reading
8. Agenda
9. About=======================================================================
1. Latest copyright votes: Filtering, blocking & half-baked compromisesOn 11 July, two Committees in the European Parliament voted on their
Opinions on European Commission's proposal for a Copyright Directive:
the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) and the Committee on
Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE).CULT decided to abandon all reason and propose measures that contradict
existing law on monitoring of online content. They also contradict clear
rulings from the highest court in the EU on internet filtering. And for
the sake of being consistently bad, the Committee also supported
ancillary copyright, a “link tax” that would make linking and quotation
almost impossible on social media.ITRE made a brave effort to fix the unfixable “censorship machine”, the
upload filter proposed by the Commission. On the one hand, this
demonstrates a willingness in the Parliament to resist the
fundamentalism of the Commission’s proposal. On the other, it shows how
impossible this task really is. Despite deleting the reference to
“content recognition technologies”, ITRE has decided to keep the
possibility of measures to prevent the availability of copyrighted works
or “other subject matter” which may or may not be understood as
supporting preventive filtering.In its Opinion, the CULT Committee proposes measures that would attack
both European businesses and citizens. The “compromise amendments” to
which CULT has agreed made the bad Copyright Directive proposal of the
European Commission even worse. Under these “compromise amendments”, it
would no longer be possible to store music recordings, video files or
any other copyrighted content on European cloud storage services, even
when the content has been legally acquired. European cloud services
would have to install filters to either block uploads, or to pay “fair”
licenses for any copyrighted material that was uploaded.While imposing filters for copyright purposes, CULT decided in April
2017 to adopt an amendment to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive
(AMSVD) to prohibit the use of the exact same method, upload filtering,
for restricting hate speech and terrorist content. It is unclear why
CULT thinks that upload filtering is ineffective and disproportionate
for terrorism, but effective and proportionate for copyright.Regarding the proposal for ancillary copyright (“link-tax”), included in
the Article 11 of the Copyright Directive proposal, views differ in
these two Committees.In ITRE, the Rapporteur initially tried hard to make sense of the
original text of the article, but the final Opinion lost much of that
first motivation. First of all, the Committee lost the chance of
supporting the amendments that called for deletion of the Article 11 in
its entirety, which was the only reasonable option. There have already
been two failed experiments to introduce the “link tax” in Germany and
Spain. Europe should not repeat the same mistakes on the EU level. As a
result, this proposal should not have stayed in the final text of the
Opinion, and should be left out in the final position of the Parliament,
which will be voted in October. The amendments adopted by the Committee
have broadened the scope to non-digital publications, worsening the
original proposal and missing the opportunity of agreeing on the
insufficient, but a bit less harmful, compromise amendments where the
new "right" was going to be replaced by a "presumption of transfer or
license by authors to publishers".The CULT has also passed an amendment calling for the removal of the
word “digital” from “digital use of their press publications”,
broadening the scope of the Commission's proposal. In a
politically-driven attempt to escape public criticism, CULT proposed to
remove the“link tax” for non-commercial use of press publications by
individual users. However, as people use commercial networks for sharing
press snippets, this amendment would have zero impact in the real world.
The Commission put an absurdly high 20-year protection limit in its
proposal to allow the other institutions to find a “compromise” lower
limit. CULT's amendments lower the protection under ancillary copyright
from twenty years to eight years. It also includes an additional text on
“fair share of the revenue generated going to journalists”, without any
indication of how this could be achieved or calculated.The main purpose of the Opinions of these two Committees is to provide
specialised expertise to the Committee in charge of the Copyright
Directive in the European Parliament, the Committee on Legal Affairs
(JURI). The Directive was previously under the leadership of Maltese
Parliamentarian Therese Comodini Cachia, who spent untold hours
consulting with all stakeholders and producing a balanced draft report.
Since she left the European Parliament, she has been replaced with Axel
Voss. Within days, he abandoned the diligently prepared approach of Ms
Comodini Cachia and is now pushing for a one-sided, restrictive
Directive, which stands little chance of surviving proper legal
scrutiny. To push the German conservative perspective as the approach to
be taken by the European People’s Party, he has even prepared a guide on
the copyright Directive.In September 2017, EU Member States and JURI will have the final
discussions before the vote in JURI on 10 October. This will be a
crucial moment and the final opportunity for the civil society to make
sure citizens' point of view will be considered before the next stage in
the legislative process.Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on copyright in the Digital Single Market (14.09.2016)
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDFNo, you can’t enjoy the music you paid for, says EU Parliament Committee
(05.07.2017)
https://edri.org/no-you-cant-enjoy-the-music-you-paid-for-says-eu-parliament/=======================================================================
2. Commission report on child protection online lacks facts & evidenceIn December 2016, the European Commission issued two reports on the
implementation of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography (Child Exploitation
Directive, 2011/93/EU): a general report and a specific report about
Article 25 of the Directive, which covers removal and blocking of child
abuse, child exploitation and child pornography online.—————————————————————–
Support our work - make a recurrent donation!
https://edri.org/supporters/
—————————————————————–The publication of the implementation report was delayed for a year.
Despite this additional time that the European Commission could have
spent on preparing its reports, it has produced unquestionably
inadequate documents. In particular, the report on Article 25 fails for
at least five reasons:
The Commission provides hardly any statistics. For example, it does
not indicate how frequently law enforcement authorities take action
after content is reported, numbers of takedowns, speed of processing
reports of possibly illegal material, delays in takedowns due to ongoing
investigations, the number of websites appearing in blocking lists, the
technologies used for blocking, the length of time sites stay on the
blocking lists, or the location of sites on the blocking lists.The report does not address state inaction following content
restrictions. These restrictions only solve a small part of the serious
problem that needs to be addressed.The Commission identified public authorities as being crucial to
combat child abuse, exploitation and pornography. However, it lists many
procedures where no single public authority is involved. This
demonstrates a tendency of the Commission to focus on superficial
technical “solutions” rather than addressing the crimes in a more
meaningful and serious way.The Commission fails to acknowledge that blocking content can be
circumvented. It also fails to report on content that was mistakenly
restricted. The Commission failed to recognise that removal of content
at source, as part of more comprehensive judicial and law enforcement
actions, should be the preferred option, rather than simply trying to
block it.The Commission claims that voluntary measures to tackle child abuse,
exploitation and pornography can comply with the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union. With regard to blocking measures, the
Commission report identified four safeguards, but failed to assess
whether Member States abide by them, contrary to the assurances it gave
to EDRi in 2012.A Swedish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Anna Maria Corazza
Bildt (EPP Group) recently published her Draft Report on the
implementation of the Directive. It contains some positive elements, in
particular, a call for a proportionality approach. Nevertheless, the
draft report contains points that should be improved. For example, its
criticism towards the Commission and the Member States with regards to
the flaws in the implementation of this important instrument is too
gentle. It depicts the “darknet” as a challenge, and ignores the
benefits it provides to the internet ecosystem. The report also
describes encryption as a “new” technology that creates one of the “main
challenges” for law enforcement and judicial authorities, while ignoring
that encryption is needed to share sensitive information concerning
criminal investigations.The Parliament will continue its work on the report in the autumn. There
is still time for it to assume its role and obtain better results for
the protection of children and fundamental rights. We hope, in
particular, that the Parliament demands for a new and better report from
the Commission, so that any future legislation will be based on strong
evidence, thereby protecting all of the rights at stake in this complex
policy area.EDRi’s position paper on the European Commission’s implementation report
on Article 25 of Directive 2011/92/EU (12.07.2017)
https://edri.org/files/children/childexploitationdirective_libedraftreport_edripositionpaper_20170712.pdfCommission’s report on the implementation of Article 25 of Directive
2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography (16.12.2016)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1486726102713&uri=CELEX:52016DC0872European Commission’s response to our letter on the blocking aspect of
the Child Exploitation Directive (26.11.2012)
https://edri.org/files/priebe_response.pdfEDRi’s letter to the Commission on the blocking aspect of the Child
Exploitation Directive (02.11.2012)
https://edri.org/files/blocking_20121102.pdfDirective on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of
children and child pornography 2011/92/EU (13.12.2011)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0093(Contribution by Maryant Fernández Pérez, EDRi)
=======================================================================
3. Net Neutrality: BEREC misses opportunity to lead the wayIn November 2015, the European Union adopted the Net Neutrality
Regulation (2015/2120), which contained a number of compromises that
needed clarification. The Body of European Regulators for Electronic
Communications (BEREC) was given the task of developing implementation
guidelines to ensure a consistent application of the Regulation
throughout Europe and, in practice, settle the remaining ambiguities of
the adopted Regulation. After a public consultation to which almost half
a million citizens responded and demanded strong net neutrality, BEREC
adopted the guidelines in August 2016. The outcome of this process was a
legal framework with robust and clear protection for net neutrality,
which was applauded all around the world.The fight for net neutrality in Europe did not, however, end there. The
National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in the Member States of the
European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) must now enforce
the Regulation to ensure that all end users – consumers as well as
Content and Application Providers (CAPs) – enjoy the full benefits of
net neutrality.The net neutrality landscape and the challenges faced by NRAs varies
greatly throughout the 31 EU/EEA countries, but there are number of
common tasks that all NRAs will have to consider. An example is
certification of monitoring systems (software) for detecting possible
net neutrality violations and empowering users to find out the actual
speed of their internet connection.—————————————————————–
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
https://edri.org/donate/
—————————————————————–In March 2017, the BEREC Net Neutrality Working Group invited
stakeholders to present their views on measurement methodology and net
neutrality supervision tools. At the stakeholder meeting with end-users
and CAPs on 14 March 2017, EDRi was invited and represented by EDRi
members epicenter.works (Austria) and IT-Pol (Denmark). The message from
EDRi to BEREC was clear: the net neutrality measurement system in Europe
should be based on open data, open source software and open,
peer-reviewed methodologies, to ensure the full transparency and
trustworthiness of the measurement results. Measuring internet quality
was for a long time an area with just a few, mostly outdated and
complicated software solutions. The mandate of NRAs to certify such
software is a huge opportunity to combine forces and create a
professional measurement system that not only solves this common problem
in Europe, but also around the world. By opening up the data pool of
measurement results, the regulators would invite independent
researchers, consumer protection organisations and civil society to look
for potential net neutrality infringements and create a better
understanding of the internet in Europe.Citizens should be encouraged to measure their internet connection as
often as possible. This would allow them to test if they actually get
the contractually agreed internet speed, and if their provider is
tinkering with their connection by blocking or throttling applications
they are using. Creating such measurement system would have the added
benefit of respecting European data protection standards, by respecting
informed consent and minimising information that can identify individual
users, such as IP addresses.At the stakeholder meeting, EDRi also pointed out the importance of
securing funding for independent civil society projects like Respect My
Net, where citizens can report cases of net neutrality violations and
see reports of possible violations from other end users. Projects like
this are necessary because net neutrality violations often go unpunished
by the regulators. Besides the comments presented in the meeting, EDRi
also submitted a written stakeholder response (pdf) to the BEREC Net
Neutrality Working Group.On 7 June 2017, BEREC presented a draft document on Net Neutrality
Regulatory Assessment Methodology for public consultation. This document
was published more than a year after the Net Neutrality Regulation went
into effect and it is underwhelming, to say the least. EDRi member
epicenter.works submitted a consultation response, supported by EDRi
members IT-Pol and Access Now, as well as EDRi observer Xnet.On some technical matters, the BEREC draft document gives a lengthy
explanation of basic principles of network measurement. However, on the
important points of collaboration between regulators, BEREC holds no
position. It proposes no common solution for measurement software, it
does not recommend an open source or open data approach which would
allow inter-operability, and it does not even acknowledge that NRAs
should certify any measurement software at all. This indicates that
opinions between Member States vary greatly and that there was no easy
consensus. However, the consensus on a measurement methodology cannot be
harder to find than on net neutrality. It is BEREC’s role to lay out a
path for collaboration between regulators. To quote the current Chair of
BEREC Sébastien Soriano: “BEREC [is] expected to be an important part of
the process for identification of solutions to problems and would be
unsympathetic to those who offered only excuses for inaction.”On some other matters, BEREC is choosing a technical solution which is
even turning a blind eye towards a common problem for many internet
users - congestion. In the draft measurement methodology BEREC is
proposing to measure speed only with multiple HTTP connections to a
single test server located in a national internet exchange point (IXP).
This setup is inadequate for finding possible net neutrality violations
since multiple HTTP connections are less likely to show congestion
issues. Also, using a single server means that some Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) can easily prioritise the traffic to this server. This
illegal type of traffic management has been documented by some ISPs in
the past and would undermine all measurement efforts if it were allowed
to continue.The draft document from BEREC mentions that NRAs are not required to
establish or certify a monitoring mechanism, and that a certified
monitoring mechanism will not be available in some Member States. While
the Regulation does not formally establish an obligation for NRAs to
certify measurement software for end users, there is a clear obligation
to closely monitor and ensure compliance with Articles 3 and 4 of the
Regulation. This task will be very difficult to accomplish if the NRA
cannot receive reliable input from end users due to a lack of certified
monitoring mechanism or software. Without measurement software, the
public is blind towards potentially illegal traffic management practices
and consumers are stripped of their right to exit contracts where the
ISP is not delivering the promised speed. In light of the need to
measure the general quality of internet access services (IAS) in Europe,
in order to make sure that specialised services do not deteriorate the
quality of the IAS, it would be vital to establish a historic data set.
This is particularly necessary before the rise of 5G prompts new
specialised service experiments by telecom operators.Rather than simply pointing out that the Regulation does not formally
require a certified monitoring mechanism, BEREC should more actively
encourage NRAs to co-operate in developing certified measurement
methodologies. If all NRAs work on developing their own software, a lot
of work is likely to be duplicated, and there will be no comparability
of the different subsidiaries of the big telecom companies in Europe.
The smaller Members States would benefit greatly from such a cooperation
between NRAs, and BEREC is the natural forum for coordinating this activity.EDRi: Net neutrality wins in Europe! (29.08.2016)
https://edri.org/net-neutrality-wins-europe/Written response to questions for BEREC stakeholder meeting with
representatives of end-users and CAPs (14.03.2017)
https://epicenter.works/document/353Respect My Net
https://respectmynet.eu/Draft Net Neutrality Regulatory Assessment Methodology, BEREC (07.06.2017)
http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/public_consultations/7093-draft-net-neutrality-regulatory-assessment-methodologyConsultation response to BEREC on Draft Net Neutrality Regulatory
Assessment Methodology, submitted by EDRi member epicenter.works
(05.07.2017)
https://epicenter.works/document/546(Contribution by Thomas Lohninger, EDRi member epicenter.works, Austria
and Jesper Lund, EDRi member IT-Pol, Denmark)=======================================================================
4. Total information awareness for law enforcement, no data protectionThe European Network of Law Enforcement Technology Services (ENLETS), an
informal group funded by the European Commission, has produced a report
on best practices in mobile solutions for law enforcement practitioners.—————————————————————–
Support our work - make a recurrent donation!
https://edri.org/supporters/
—————————————————————–The report sees developments in mobile technologies, telecoms networks
and cloud computing as a “game-changer” for total information awareness
for law enforcement authorities. It foresees police smartphones,
smartwatches or other devices having instant, 24/7 access to a complete
profile on individuals from data gathered and stored locally, nationally
or internationally.This turning point is based, firstly, on the rapidly increasing number
of information sources – listing for example social media, multimedia,
Internet of Things, trackers and tracers, inter-officer chat, all of
which are becoming instantly available to law enforcement officers.Secondly, the report argues, there is the issue of increasing numbers of
sensors and automation. It points out that smartphones have sensors and
collect information on individuals - they know who you are, your skills,
preferences, tasks, whether you are walking, running or driving, they
know where you are; they can recognise faces, voices and fingerprints.
They are able to combine all that data into context relevant information
and provide you with it at the right time, or the right location. And
all of this without being asked for, the report adds.According to the group, we will soon be at a point where “there will be
a symbiotic relationship between a user (policeman) and his wearable
devices,” with automatic sensors and systems constantly providing
information from a whole host of sources without even being prompted.We have not yet, however, arrived in the age of total information
awareness. A cross-border policing exercise recently conducted by ENLETS
showed the limits of current systems, according to the report. These
limits are due to the lack of technical tools that enable efficient
group messaging, exchange of photos, videos and/or documents or tracking
of the important movements of people, goods or vehicles.Currently, there are numerous centralised EU databases for law
enforcement and border control, and various networks of national
systems. The ENLETS report notes that in the future, access to security
and border related data held in such systems will be through mobile
devices, permitting direct, operational use.A key role in developing systems that allow for simultaneous searches
across all EU law enforcement and border control information systems is
foreseen for the EU Agency for Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA). The
agency could implement and operate a centralised EU system for
cross-border and covert operations, but the report acknowledges the
mandate limitations of the agency's possibility to develop any such
system. An attempt to remedy this is being made with a proposal for a
new legal basis for the agency, published by the European Commission. It
is designed to help Member States better align national infrastructures
to EU systems, including through the setting up of mobile solutions. The
Commission is due to publish a further legal proposal on
interoperability later in 2017.The report's final recommendation to the Law Enforcement Working Party
(LEWP), the Council group to which it reports, calls for exploring with
eu-LISA the possibility of establishing a European 24/7 centralised
infrastructure for bilateral exchange in operations. This would be used
for secure mobile communication between Member States to support better
cross-border operations, including covert work.The report notes that the real benefit of mobile policing is
standardisation and optimisation of best practices and procedures at the
operational level and combating data quality problems. Some countries
are now focusing on thorough mobile ID checks, by using smartphones, as
a mandatory first step in any process.Technology is not the only stumbling block to realising this vision of
total information awareness. The report does not mention data protection
by name once, although it notes legality of data processing as one of
the key points to address.Neither is ENLETS' vision likely to be easy to achieve on an
organisational level. The report itself states that implementing mobile
solutions in policing on a large scale is a major undertaking.This article was originally published at
http://statewatch.org/news/2017/jul/eu-mobile-policing.htmEU wastes no time welcoming prospect of Big Brother databases (15.05.2017)
http://statewatch.org/news/2017/may/eu-hleg-interop-report.htmEU funding for network developing surveillance, intelligence-gathering
and remote vehicle stopping tools (January 2015)
http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=34440EU: Police forces get ready for multi-billion euro policing and security
funds (June 2014)
http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=33609EU: New police cooperation plan includes surveillance,
intelligence-gathering and remote vehicle stopping technology (January 2014)
http://database.statewatch.org/article.asp?aid=32661(Contribution by EDRi member Statewatch)
=======================================================================
5. Dissent in the privacy movement: whistleblowing, art and protestThis is the first 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.*On 29 December 2013, digital activist, technologist, and researcher
Jacob Appelbaum closes the year with a talk titled “To Protect and
Infect, Part 2” at the 30th edition of the Chaos Communication Congress
in Hamburg, Germany. He elaborates on the kind of surveillance
activities the United States National Security Agency (NSA) deploys, and
reveals, among other things, the existence of a dragnet surveillance
system called TURMOIL. The information he shares originates from the set
of classified documents that whistleblower Edward Snowden collected
while working as an NSA system administrator. In June 2013, Snowden
decided to share these documents with the press, explaining that he does
not want to live in a world where we have no privacy and no freedom and
that the public has the right to know what their government is doing to
them and doing on their behalf. Later, at the 2014 Dutch Big Brother
Awards, he adds that he considered the NSA’s surveillance programs such
a severe violation of human rights that he felt it was his obligation to
make the documents public. Snowden’s statements are related to a larger,
ongoing public debate about surveillance: how much knowledge about
citizens is just and necessary for governments to possess and what
actions are legitimate to obtain that information?—————————————————————–
Support our work with a one-off-donation!
https://edri.org/donate/
—————————————————————–Four activists surfaced in the wake of the Snowden leaks and quickly
took on leading roles in the debate: Jacob Appelbaum, Glenn Greenwald,
Sarah Harrison, and Laura Poitras. Although these four individuals had
shared beliefs, they do not share a common background. At the time of
the first publications Glenn Greenwald worked as a journalist, Laura
Poitras as a documentary filmmaker, Jacob Appelbaum as a technologist,
and Sarah Harrison as a journalist and legal researcher for WikiLeaks.
Although they are certainly not the only individuals who are relevant to
the larger group of activists who work on privacy and surveillance
issues, their diversity really is a reflection of the diversity of the
group concerned with these issues.The privacy movement is incredibly diverse, decentralised, and therefore
complicated to define. In spite of this, expressing dissent is one of
the key characteristics of the movement. It is where activists find each
other and share their ideas with the rest of the world. So what does
dissent look like in the privacy movement? There are three different
ways in which the privacy movement seems to express dissent, namely
through whistleblowing, through art, and through protest. Each
contributes to the understanding of the privacy movement as a whole.First, whistleblowing is interesting because its role is threefold.
Besides the fact that whistleblowing is a means for the privacy movement
to expresses dissent, whistleblowers are also a vital source of
information to the movement and furthermore often become activists
within the movement themselves. Second, activist art is a way for the
privacy movement to communicate its ideas and goals to members of the
movement as well as to the wider public. Although there is only a small
group of activists involved in the process of creating the art, it does
affect the movement in its entirety. Last, the privacy movement also
expresses dissent through protest. This is done both through traditional
types of protest such as street demonstrations, as well as through
protest forms that can only exist online, for example the development,
promotion, and use of tools that provide more anonymity for internet users.Although dissent is an element that characterises the privacy movement,
it is certainly not the only one. The untraditional role of leadership
within the movement and the physical meeting place in Berlin also
contribute to the unique character of the movement.In the upcoming articles in this series, we will explore whistleblowing,
art, and protest as expressions of dissent in more depth.The series was originally published by EDRi member Bits of Freedom at
https://www.bof.nl/tag/meeting-the-privacy-movement/(Contribution by Loes Derks van de Ven)
—-
* This research was finalised in 2015 and does not take into account the
changes within the movement that have occurred since then.=======================================================================
6. Recommended ActionDon't miss the Digital Rights Fund!
The Digital Rights Fund is a peer-driven programme that funds work for
digital rights in Europe. Grant proposals need to be formally submitted
by an EDRi member organisation, but the programme encourages
collaboration and cooperation with other civil society and civil liberty
organisations.
https://digitalrights.fund/Join the Digital Defenders!
European Digital Rights fights for your right to privacy, freedom of
expression, modernisation of copyright rules, net neutrality, and
against mass surveillance. Join the team of Digital Defenders - support
our work with a donation!
https://edri.org/donate/=======================================================================
7. Recommended ReadingTurkish authorities detain top human rights defenders at training workshop
https://advox.globalvoices.org/2017/07/06/turkish-authorities-detain-top-human-rights-defenders-at-training-workshop/"Who has your back?" - WhatsApp scores low on EFF's privacy rating
https://www.eff.org/press/releases/att-verizon-other-telco-providers-lag-behind-tech-industry-protecting-usersGoogle removed 2.5 billion "pirate" search results
https://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-2-5-billion-pirate-search-results-170706/What happens when your car gets hacked?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/what-happens-when-your-car-gets-hacked.htmlInternet surveillance, regulation, and chilling effects online: a
comparative case study
https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-surveillance-regulation-and-chilling-effects-online-comparative-caseHacker Lexicon: What Is steganography?
https://slim-weight.info/story/steganography-hacker-lexicon/%3C/p%3E%3Cdiv role="heading" aria-level="1" class="heading-h1">=======================================================================
8. Agenda14.07.2017, Kotor, Montenegro
Digital-born Media Carnival
http://www.shareconference.net/carnival/19.07.2017, Perast, Montenegro
Data Investigation Camp
https://tacticaltech.org/datacamp04.08.2017, Zeewolde, the Netherlands
SHA2017
https://sha2017.org/09.08.2017, Montréal, Canada
Wikimania 2017
https://wikimania2017.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania01.09.2017, Berlin, Germany
Das ist Netzpolitik! Conference 2017
https://netzpolitik.org/2017/call-for-papers-fight-for-your-digital-rights-das-ist-netzpolitik-conference-2017/28.09.2017, Warsaw, Poland
CopyCamp 2017
https://copycamp.pl/en/13.10.2017, Brussels, Belgium
Big Brother Awards Belgium 201720.10.2017, Jena, Germany
TRUST – Think Realistic when Using Sophisticated Technologies – 33rd
FIfF annual conference
http://2017.fiffkon.de/27.12.2017, Leipzig, Germany
Chaos Communication Congress (34C3)
https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2017/34C3-in-leipzig============================================================
12. AboutEDRi-gram is a fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights by
European Digital Rights (EDRi), an association of civil and human rights
organisations from across Europe. EDRi 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- 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.
