*GDPR! GDPR!
======================================================================
EDRi-gram
fortnightly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
EDRi-gram 16.11, 30 May 2018
Read online: https://edri.org/edri-gram-16-11/=======================================================================
Contents1. GDPRexplained Campaign: the new regulation is here to protect our rights
2. GDPR: A new philosophy of respect
3. Your ePrivacy is nobody else's business
4. A digestible guide to individual's rights under GDPR
5. The four year battle for the protection of your data Your ePrivacy is
nobody else's business
6. Belgium Constitutional Court decision on the concept of incitement to
terrorism
7. Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte: Legal Challenge Against Bavarian
Police Act
8. Recommended Action
9. Recommended Reading
10. Agenda
11. About=======================================================================
1. GDPRexplained Campaign: the new regulation is here to protect our rightsHundreds of e-mails informing about changes to companies’ privacy
policies were sent out across the EU in the name of the GDPR. Both users
and companies are confused with the variety of – sometimes contradictory
– explanations and interpretations. The #GDPRexplained / #TimeToDisagree
campaign launched by Panoptykon together with European Digital Rights
and Bits of Freedom reminds everyone that the GDPR is – above all – a
new tool to protect our rights.The new data protection regulations re-emphasize that what we are
protecting is living people and not meaningless sets of digits. A person
can easily fall victim to wrongdoings concerning personal data. For
instance, consumers may be negatively impacted if an insurance company
increases a fee, a bank rejects an application for a loan based on
unclear criteria or an ISP manipulates their political and consumer
decisions by streaming a “tailored” newsfeed on their wall, without
explaining the logic behind the choice.The point of the new regulation – to regain control over who knows what
about us and what they do with this information – is buried under the
discussion about how companies are not meeting up to their requirements
and seeking simple yes or no answers to particular dilemmas. What really
matters though is the people and their rights.Have you ever received a call from an unknown company and the person on
the other side of the wire called you by your first name? The GDPR will
make it easier to find out where did the company obtained your data from
and ask them to erase it. It will challenge the common problem of
bullying users to get their consent for data processing. The fuss around
the GDPR alone makes so many people think: perhaps I don’t have to agree
to all of this? A strong data protection authority and a perspective of
real financial sanctions should discourage everyone from taking
unnecessary risks associated with violating the rights of their customers.Our GDPR Explained campaign aims at educating individuals and
organisations about the new rights granted to us and the changes to be
made when dealing with personal data. We have put together answers to
many important questions we have received and built a FAQ for anyone to
access.Visit the campaign at https://gdprexplained.eu.
Read more:
Press Release: GDPR: A new philosophy of respect (25.05.2018)
https://edri.org/press-release-gdpr-philosophy-respect/The four year battle for the protection of your data (24.05.2018)
https://edri.org/four-year-battle-protection-of-your-data-gdpr/GDPRexplained: a social campaign launched today reminds the new
regulation is there to protect our rights (25.05.2018)
https://en.panoptykon.org/articles/gdprexplained-social-campaign-launched-today-reminds-new-regulation-there-protect-our(Contribution by Panoptykon Foundation, EDRi member)2. GDPR: A new philosophy of respectThe General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is going in effect
tomorrow, on 25 May 2018, strengthening and harmonising individuals
rights in regards to personal data. A much celebrated success for all
privacy advocates, GDPR is more than just a law."GDPR is a new philosophy that promotes a culture of trust and security
and that enables an environment of Respect-by-Default" said Joe McNamee,
Executive Director of European Digital Rights.The Directive adopted in 1995 was characterised by a tendency towards
bureaucratic compliance with little enforcement. The GDPR represents a
recalibration of focus, establishing a new balance between companies,
people and data. The framework does not only protect, but also changes,
perceptions of personal data. On one hand, GDPR protects individuals
from companies and governments abusing their personal data and promotes
privacy as a standard. On the other, it gives businesses the chance to
develop processes with privacy-by-default in mind, ensuring in this way
both individuals' trust and legal compliance . GDPR minimises the risk
of some companies' bad behaviour undermining trust in all actors."The GDPR is capable of setting the highest regional standards for the
protection of personal data; once well implemented, we need updated
global rules" said Diego Naranjo, Senior Policy Advisor of European
Digital Rights.While not perfect, because no legislation is perfect, the GDPR is
probably the best possible outcome in the current political context. We
will now have to rely on each EU Member State's Data Protection
Authority (DPA) to do their jobs correctly and on governments to ensure
enough resources have been allocated to allow this to happen.To promote educational efforts around GDPR, we have developed an online
resources that help everyone better understand their new rights and
responsibilities, the "GDPR Explained" campaign which will be launched
shortly.Read more:
The four year battle for the protection of your data (24.05.2018)
https://edri.org/four-year-battle-protection-of-your-data-gdpr/EU Data Protection Package – Lacking ambition but saving the basics
(17.12.2015)
https://edri.org/eu-data-protection-package-lacking-ambition-but-saving-the-basics/=======================================================================
3. Your ePrivacy is nobody else's businessThe right to privacy is a fundamental right for every individual,
enshrined in international human rights treaties. This right is being
particularly threatened by political and economic interests, which are
having a deep impact on freedom of expression, democratic participation
and personal security. The recent Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal
is a perfect example of the risks that privacy breaches poses to
individuals' rights.Under the excuse of providing customers with “a better service”,
companies are often unnecessarily asking to exploit communications data,
and track them online. In practice, these “requests” often leave users
without the real possibility of refusing, as this would mean not being
allowed to use the service. This is what EDRi member Bits of Freedom
calls “tracking walls”. To protect citizens from this and other abusive
practices, EU level rules have been developed, namely the ePrivacy
Directive. This Directive was adopted in 2002 and revised in 2009. Now,
a new proposal for a ePrivacy Regulation is on the table.The protection of the right to privacy online in the ePrivacy Regulation
should be at the centre of EU’s priorities. For this reason, it is
important to be aware of the most sensitive issues concerning ePrivacy,
to be able to identify when citizens’ rights could be at risk:
ConsentConsent is one of the ways to allow your data to be used legally.
Through free and informed consent, the users agree that a company to
accesses a specific personal information for a specific purpose..
Consent drives the trust that is needed for new services but it needs to
be meaningful. It must be freely given, specific, informed and explicit,
not the only choice that is available. For example, accepting abusive
permissions “required” by an app, when the only alternative is not using
the app at all, is not a valid form of requiring consent.
Legitimate interest“Legitimate interest” means that under exceptional circumstances it
would be legal to access personal data without the user’s consent.
Communications data – your emails, calls over the internet, chats, and
so on – must be treated as sensitive data, as it has been stated by the
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The “legitimate interest”
exception allows only the use of non-sensitive data – such as an email
address or a telephone number – therefore communications data cannot,
logically and legally, be processed under this exception. For this
reason, companies should, in no circumstances, be allowed to monetise or
otherwise exploit sensitive communications without specific permission.Given that the scope of the ePrivacy Regulation deals with sensitive
data, the legitimate interest exception has no place in it. Any
suchexception would fatally undermine users’ control over such
information. Moreover, it would affect freedom of expression, as the
users would fear having their communications controlled by companies
without consent.
Offline trackingOffline tracking is a highly intrusive technology, which implies being
tracked through your electronic device. The location of your device can
be used for unlawful purposes involving the use of sensitive data,
revealing personal information of the users, particularly when they are
in the vicinity of – or in – various service or institutions. The
European Commission has proposed to allow this offline tracking as long
as the individual notified. However, obtaining this information by
tracking individual citizens poses severe privacy risks and
possibilities for abuse, including the risk of mass surveillance by
commercial or law enforcement entities. For these reasons, every update
of the ePrivacy rules must consider less intrusive ways to obtain
location-based information.
Privacy by design and by defaultIn the same way that you expect to use a microwave oven without having
to think about a risk of starting a fire in your house, your connected
devices should protect your privacy by design and by default. Privacy by
design is the principle by which a high level of user privacy protection
is incorporated in all stages of a device’s creation Privacy by default
means that our devices are set to protect our data, with options to
change this, if we wish to do so. As the ePrivacy Regulation will be the
main framework to protect your communications online, it is important
that hardware and software (not only browsers) will be designed, at all
stages, to protect the privacy of individuals by default, and not by option.The ePrivacy Regulation is currently being revised in the Council of the
European Union, and there is an aggressive lobbying campaign to
influence the Regulation to allow big business to exploit personal data
more easily. Consequently, it will become less favourable for protecting
citizens and their privacy online – the very purpose of the Regulation.
Some of the [https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/ePrivacy_mythbusting.pdf
arguments promoted by the lobbyists] are that ePrivacy is bad for
democracy and for media pluralism, and that it prevents the fight
against illegal content. (None of these arguments is actually linked
with protecting privacy.) We have busted these myths, as well as the
rest of the most common misconceptions related to ePrivacy. You can read
more about it here: https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/ePrivacy_mythbusting.pdfBeing aware of what it is at risk is the best way to fight against lobby
campaigns threatening citizens' rights.(Contribution by Maria Roson, EDRi Intern)
Read more:
Mythbusting - Killing the lobby myths that are polluting the preparation
of the e-Privacy Regulation
https://edri.org/files/eprivacy/ePrivacy_mythbusting.pdfEU Member States fight to retain data retention in place despite CJEU
rulings (02.05.2018)
https://edri.org/eu-member-states-fight-to-retain-data-retention-in-place-despite-cjeu-rulings/ePrivacy: Civil society letter calls to ensure privacy and reject data
retention (24.04.2018)
https://edri.org/eprivacy-civil-society-letter-calls-to-ensure-privacy-and-reject-data-retention/Cambridge Analytica access to Facebook messages a privacy violation
(18.04.2018)
https://edri.org/cambridge-analytica-access-to-facebook-messages-a-privacy-violation/(Contribution by Maria Roson, EDRi Intern)
=======================================================================
4. A digestible guide to individual's rights under GDPRThe General Data Protection Regulation went into effect on May 25th and
Privacy Policy updates have been flooding inboxes. GDPR enhances
everyone’s rights, regardless of nationality, gender, economic status
and so on. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals know very little
about these rights and GDPR at large. The following guide is part of the
GDPRexplained campaign and provides a digestible explanation of
individuals' rights and basic concepts in the EU’s new data protection
regulation.What are my rights under the GDPR?
1. You have the right to information.
- Companies and organisations are now required to communicate to you, in
plain and accessible language, what personal data they process and how
they use it. (“Processing” includes anything related to the collection,
aggregation, mining or sharing of data.)
- If a company or organisation builds a profile on you (e.g. from data
matched up from different sources), you have the right to know what’s in
this profile.2. You have the right to secure handling.
The GDPR regulates that personal data should be stored and processed
securely.3. You have the right to access the personal data a company/organisation
holds on you, at any time.
- If the data is inaccurate, you can change or complete it.
- If the data is no longer necessary, you can ask the
company/organisation to delete it.
- If you initially gave the company/organisation more data than was
necessary for receiving the service (e.g. for marketing purposes), but
no longer want them to have this data, you can ask them to delete it.4. You have the right to use a service without giving away additional data.
If a company/organisation wants to process personal data that is not
strictly necessary for the provision of a particular service (e.g. a
transport app that wants access to your phone’s contact list), they need
to get your explicit consent to process that data. Note that even if a
company believes that certain data is in their interest to process, this
does not always mean that it is necessary. If you have already consented
to the processing of additional data, you can always withdraw this consent.5. With automated decisions, you have the right to explanation and human
intervention.
- If a decision has been made about you through automatic mechanisms,
you have the right to know how the decision was made (i.e. you are
entitled to an explanation of the logic behind the mechanism used).
- When it comes to automated decision-making, you have a right to human
intervention, and the right to contest any decision made.6. How will these rights be enforced?
Each country will have an independent public Data Protection Authority
(DPA) to ensure that companies are in compliance with the regulation.
You have the right to lodge a complaint with your DPA or to go to court
if you feel that your rights have been violated.7. Do I need to do anything?
No. It’s up to companies and organisations to make sure that your
personal data is protected. There are, however, still decisions you’ll
need to make.
- For new services you want to use: If the company is asking you to give
them data, do you really want to agree? (If the service only processes
necessary data, they are required to inform you but do not need to ask
for special consent to do so. They do, however, need to ask for explicit
consent when they want data that’s not necessary).
- For the services you’re using at the moment: Are you still comfortable
with the way the company/ organisation collects, analyses and shares
your personal data? If you no longer agree, you can simply say “no”.
Finally: if you think your rights are not being upheld, you can decide
to report it to your DPA, or even challenge the company in court.8. Does it mean I can “delete” myself?
Not quite. You can’t delete all your personal data whenever you want to.
But you can ask to have your data deleted in a few specific situations -
for example if a company/organisation no longer needs it it in order to
provide the service you are using, or if you decide to withdraw your
consent. However, even in such cases, companies may still have viable
reasons to keep your data, for example for tax purposes or to protect
themselves from possible future claims.9. Can I talk to companies about their use of my data?
Absolutely! The GDPR requires that companies and organisations respond
to questions about personal data. This includes whether or not they
process your personal data in the first place, and if so for what
purpose, how long it will be stored, and with whom it is shared. And if
you ever change your mind about what you have consented to or accepted,
companies and organisations are also required not only to make it easy
for you to communicate this choice, but also to act upon it.10. What can I do if a company is using my personal data against my will?
It may be useful to contact the company itself first. Regardless of
whether you do that, however, you can also file a complaint with your
national Data Protection Authority - even if the company does not have
an office in your country. And if you’re not satisfied with the DPA’s
decision, you can take the company to court.
- You can also skip the DPA and go directly to court if you feel your
rights have been violated.
- If as a result of a violation you have suffered material or
non-material damage, you can seek financial compensation.
- Third parties, such as consumer protection agencies, digital rights
foundations or other interest groups, could also litigate on behalf of
you and others.11. Why are some companies critical of the GDPR?
Many companies have become used to treating your data as a ‘free
resource’ - something they could take without asking permission and
exploit for their own financial gain; something they could collect
without limit, without protecting it. The GDPR is a powerful tool to
force companies to re-evaluate the risks involved – not just to the
individuals whose data they process, but also to themselves, in terms of
fines and loss of customer trust - and to treat your data with the
common-sense care and respect that should really have been in place from
the beginning.12. Does the GDPR apply to the data my employer has on me?
Yes. Your employer, like any other organisation that processes data, has
to conform to the GDPR. However each EU member state can adopt more
specific rules when it comes to the employment relationship. If you’re
interested in this, you should look for more information on your
national Data Protection Authority’s website.13. Does the GDPR apply to US companies?
Yes. As soon as a company monitors or tracks the behaviour of internet
users on EU territory, the regulation will kick in – no matter where the
company is based.Read more:
GDPRexplained: a social campaign launched today reminds the new
regulation is there to protect our rights (25.05.2018)
https://en.panoptykon.org/articles/gdprexplained-social-campaign-launched-today-reminds-new-regulation-there-protect-ourPress Release: GDPR: A new philosophy of respect (25.05.2018)
https://edri.org/press-release-gdpr-philosophy-respect/The four year battle for the protection of your data (24.05.2018)
https://edri.org/four-year-battle-protection-of-your-data-gdpr/=======================================================================
5. The four year battle for the protection of your dataIn 2012, what would become a four-year process started: the creation of
new European data protection rules. The General Data Protection
Regulation would replace the existing European Data Protection Directive
adopted in 1995 and enhance and harmonise data protection levels across
Europe. The result is an influential piece of legislation that touches
on the lives of 500 million people and creates the highest regional
standard for data protection.
A lobbyist feeding frenzyWith so much at stake, civil society was preparing for strong push-back
from companies. But we could never have dreamed just how dead set
corporate lobbyists were on undermining citizens’ rights – or the
lengths they would go to to achieve their goals. Former European
Commissioner Viviane Reding said it was the most aggressive lobbying
campaign she had ever encountered. The European Parliament was flooded
with the largest lobby offensive in its political history.
Civil society fights backThe European Digital Rights network worked together and continued to
fight back. Among other things we had to explain that data leaks are
dangerous and need to be reported, and that it’s not acceptable to track
and profile people without their consent. We were up against the
combined resources of the largest multinational corporations and
data-hungry governments, but we also had two things in our favor: the
rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht and his team were adamant about
safeguarding civil rights, and in 2013 the Snowden-revelations made
politicians more keen on doing the same. Against all odds, we prevailed!
GDPR isn’t perfect, but it is a way forwardThe General Data Protection Regulation that was adopted in 2016, and
will be enforced starting May 25th, is far from perfect. As we pointed
out in 2015, we did however manage to save “the essential elements of
data protection in Europe”, and now have a tool with which to hold
companies and governments using your data to account. We are committed
to doing just that. We will continue to fight for your privacy, speak
out when and where it is necessary and help you do the same.Read more:
EU Data Protection Package - Lacking ambition but saving the basics
(17.12.2015)
https://edri.org/eu-data-protection-package-lacking-ambition-but-saving-the-basics/EDRi GDPR document pool
https://edri.org/gdpr-document-pool/(Contribution by Bits of Freedom, EDRi member, the Netherlands)
=======================================================================
6. Belgium Constitutional Court decision on the concept of incitement to
terrorismOn the 15 March, the Constitutional Court of Belgium issued judgement
31/2018 on the action for the annulment of the law of 3 August 2016
containing various provisions in the fight against terrorism (III),
introduced by the NGO Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (Human Rights League)
with the Council of Ministers as the defendant. Since the applicant
raised objections exclusively against the articles 2 and 6 of the law of
3 August 2016, the Court considered the appeal admissible only in so far
as it was directed against these articles, and not to the entire law.Concerning article 2 of the Law of 3 August 2016, the applicant’s
complaint was based on the modification of the previous text of article
140bis of the Criminal Code. The modifications of this article had
deleted the requirement that an action pose a real risk to society to be
considered an incitement to terrorism. With the removal of this
requirement, the article left a wide margin of interpretation, making it
impossible to assess the true impact of the action as it was not needed
to pose a real risk. This modification also added the possibility of an
action inciting "directly or indirectly" to commit a terrorist act, an
expression considered too general by the applicant, who felt that this
generated great uncertainty about what might or might not be considered
an incitement to terrorism. These two modifications also could lead to
the criminalisation of less serious offences, without the minimum
sentence being reduced.For these reasons, Ligue des Droits de l’Homme claimed that these
modifications were a violation of the principle of legality and the
principle of proportionality, being that people could be accused of
committing a crime without anything proving it, based on a potential
risk determined without objective grounds. These modifications would
deeply affect freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom
of movement, leaving citizens uncertain about which could be said or
done, since an action would not need to pose a real risk to the public
safety nor directly incite to commit a terrorist offence to be
considered as such.As for article 6 of the Law of 3 August 2016, the modification
authorises preventive detention in cases of absolute necessity for
public security in the case of terrorist offences for which the maximum
applicable penalty exceeds five years' imprisonment, whereas for other
offences for which the maximum penalty does not exceed 15 years'
imprisonment, preventive detention is only possible if there are serious
reasons to fear that the accused, if left at liberty, would commit new
crimes or offences, evade justice, attempt to disappear evidence or
collude with third parties. The applicant alleges that the
classification as a terrorist offence is not an objective criterion to
justify the difference made in relation to other offences.On their side, the defendant party claimed that the modifications in
both articles were founded on the protection of citizens and on the
necessity of making the measures and actions to fight against terrorist
offences more efficient.The Constitutional Court carried out a thorough examination of articles
2 and 6 of the law in order to assess their compliance with the Belgian
constitution, going through legal grounds including not only the Belgian
constitution itself, but also international instruments ratified by
Belgium (such as the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Council of
Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism or the European
Convention on Human Rights), and also decisions of the Council of the
European Union in the fight against terrorism and the case law of the
European Court of Human Rights.In its judgement, the Court decided to annul article 2, 3°, of the law
of 3 August 2016, considering several legal obligations, the most
relevant being one included in Directive 2017/541/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism,
which says that “Member States shall take the necessary measures to
ensure that it is punishable as a criminal offence, when committed
intentionally, the dissemination or any other form of making available
to the public by any means, whether online or offline, of a message with
the intention of inciting the commission of one of the offences listed
in Article 3(1)(a) to (i), where such conduct incites, directly or
indirectly, for example by glorifying terrorist acts, to commit
terrorist offences, thereby creating the risk that one or more of those
offences may be committed.” Other paragraphs of this directive also
mention the need of creating a risk, such as article 10 that states that
“such behaviour should be punishable when it creates the risk that
terrorist acts could be committed.”Therefore, based on the absence of this requirement in the modified
article 140bis, the Court proceeded to annul article 2.3 of the Law of 3
August 2016.As for article 6, the Court did not consider it unconstitutional and
agreed with the Council of Ministers by saying that the Legislator does
not disproportionately infringe the rights of the people concerned due
to the special circumstances of terrorist offences, which might require
stronger preventive measures that may not apply in other criminal offences.(Contribution by Maria Roson, EDRi Intern)
Read more:
Terrorism Directive: Document
https://edri.org/terrorism-directive-document-pool/Can we ensure EU terrorism policies respect human rights? (24.01.2018)
https://edri.org/can-we-ensure-eu-terrorism-policies-respect-human-rights/=======================================================================
7. Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte: Legal challenge against Bavarian
Police ActEDRi observer Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) is preparing a
joint constitutional complaint to be brought before the German
Constitutional Court against the newly passed Bavarian Police Act (PAG)
and has started a crowdfunding campaign for that case. In the last
couple of weeks Germany has seen major protests against the Bavarian
Police Task Act (#noPAG) – but nevertheless, the law was passed by the
Bavarian state parliament on 15 May and went into force on 25 May.GFF sees the law as a massive threat to civil rights in Bavaria. Critics
have seized especially on a definition shift in the Christlich-Soziale
Union (CSU) government's law for the threshold for police intervention
from "imminent danger" (konkrete Gefahr) to "looming danger" (drohende
Gefahr). as the threshold for police intervention. “Not only does the
police get a whole new set of competences to restrict civil rights, but
they can also act much earlier. Previously, there were clear
requirements as to when the police should be allowed to act, and police
action could be tested by administrative courts. In the future, it can
hardly be regulated if a given situation is actually presented a
“looming danger”, explains Ulf Buermeyer, chairman of Gesellschaft für
Freiheitsrechte. “Now, the police is in fact almost free to intervene at
their own discretion”. This law will impact digital rights on a whole
range of issues, like the use of drones to make images of public events
, including specific identification of individuals, lower legal
requirements for the police to use wiretapping or get access to user
data from third parties.Consequently, loosening legal requirements to only a “looming danger”
will be one of the main issues in GFF´s constitutional complaint. A
group of lawyers and civil rights groups is preparing a complaint and
currently examining the law for other infringements of civil and human
rights. “There are several options to act in the courts against the law.
For us it is important to act as thoroughly as possible. We need a
brilliant complaint to be successful”, Buermeyer adds.GFF and other critics fear that the law in Bavaria is only a beginning
for a nation-wide change in police legislation, since the newly elected
Minister of the Interior Horst Seehofer has been Bavarian prime minister
and is also a prominent CSU party member – the party that drafted and
pushed the new law. Accordingly, Seehofer considers the new police
powers in Bavaria as a blueprint for the rest of the country.GFF prepared a synopsis (available only in German), that containings the
four different versions of the Bavarian Police Act: the one before
01.08.2017, the one since 01.08.2017, the draft of January 2018 and the
proposed changes of CSU, that went into force on 25 May.(Contribution by Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte, EDRi member, Germany)
Read more:
GFF: Bavarian Police Act Synopsis (available only in German):
https://freiheitsrechte.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/GFF_Synopse_BayPAG.pdfBavarians protest against vastly extended police powers (16.05.2018)
https://edri.org/bavarians-protest-against-vastly-extended-police-powers/=======================================================================
8. Recommended ActionJoin EDRi's pool of translators!
Are you fluent in English and enjoy translating into your mother tongue?
Then you can volunteer as a translator, and help us spread our material
in as many languages as possible! If you want to join our team of
translators, please write to brussels@edri.org with the subject "I want
to TRANSLATE" and tell us to which language(s) you can translate and we
will get in touch with you with further instructions.Stop the #CensorshipMacine!
Several organisations have been calling Members of the European
Parliament (MEPs) in the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and asked for
the deletion of Article 13 in the proposed Copyright Directive. The
action is ongoing. Do you want to join? Get in touch!
https://edri.org/coordinated-action-censorship-machine-call/GFF Coruwfunding Campaign
Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) has started a crowdfunding
campaign for a joint constitutional complaint against the newly passed
Bavarian Police act (PAG).
https://freiheitsrechte.org/pag-bayern-stoppen/#donate=======================================================================
9. Recommended ReadingGlobal policy next steps following CA/FB scandal:
https://privacyinternational.org/feature/1709/why-cambridge-analytica-facebook-scandal-wake-call-all-governments-seven-steps-globalEU-Japan trade agreement’s intellectual property chapter limits options
for reform:
http://blog.ffii.org/eu-japan-trade-agreements-intellectual-property-chapter-limits-options-for-reform/=======================================================================
10. Agenda22.09.2018, Dresden, Germany
Symposium Datenspuren 2018
https://www.datenspuren.de/2018/28.09.2018, Berlin, Germany
#FIfFKon18 Brave New World
https://www.fiff.de/fiffkon18-brave-new-world============================================================
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.
