RSS
Rina Steenkamp - Privacy and technology
A leaked document by the Council of the European Union.
Item 1 of the document:
"The purpose of this paper is to inform [the Working Party on Data Protection and Exchange of Information] of the results of the Commissions consultation on the reform of the Data Retention Directive (DRD), to set out the main problems, and to put specific questions on which the Commission, in determining the way forward, will rely on evidence supplied by Member States."
Council of the European Union: Consultation on reform of Data Retention Directive - emerging themes and next steps (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
SOLV: Bewaar ons voor de bewaarplicht
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Tweakers.net: Uitbreiding bewaarplicht lijkt waarschijnlijk
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
WebWereld: bewaarplicht dreigt ook voor sociale media
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
BoF: Europese Commissie blind voor kritiek bewaarplicht
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
A document by the European Commission.
From 3.4 Combating abuse and resolving disputes more effectively:
"The mechanisms to stop abuse and illegal information must [...] be made more efficient, within a framework which guarantees legal certainty, the proportionality of the rules governing businesses and respect for fundamental rights. [...] In view of the growing volume of statutory and case-law in the Member States, it now appears necessary to set up a horizontal European framework for notice and action procedures. In parallel to this, the Commission will revise the Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights in 2012 in order to combat illegal content more effectively and in a manner which upholds the internal market and fundamental rights by improving the framework for civil law proceedings. The creation of the European notice and action framework will be without prejudice to this initiative. Cooperation between stakeholders, in particular internet providers, rights-holders and payment services, in the European Union and the US, may also help to combat illegal content."
European Commission: A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce and online services (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
EC: Communication on e-commerce and other online services (2012)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
La Quadrature du Net: Notice & action - EU commission must put freedom of expression first
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
From the press release:
"EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files. Such an injunction does not comply with the prohibition on imposing a general monitoring obligation on such a provider, or with the requirement to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the right to intellectual property, and, on the other, the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the freedom to receive or impart information."
Court of Justice of the European Union: Scarlet Extended SA v [SABAM] (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
InfoCuria - Case-law of the Court of Justice: C-70/10 - Scarlet Extended
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
BBC News: European Court of Justice rejects web piracy filter
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Inside Privacy: European Court rejects internet filtering by ISPs
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
La Quadrature du Net: EU Court of Justice - Censorship in name of copyright violates fundamental rights
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
AG: Verplichte filtering internet mag niet volgens EU-hof
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
BoF: Oneindig monitoren internet verboden
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
ICT Recht: Lichte teleurstelling bij een mooie overwinning
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Internetrecht: Hoogste EU Hof verbiedt p2p-filterplicht voor isp's, maar hoe ver gaat dit?
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Nu.nl: Providers hoeven internetverkeer niet te filteren
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
SOLV: HvJ - Filterverplichting P2P-verkeer in strijd met fundamentele rechten
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
time.lex: Europees Hof van Justitie - Filtering in strijd met Europees recht
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Tweakers.net: Internetproviders hoeven niet te filteren op inbreuk auteursrecht
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
WebWereld: Hoogste EU Hof verbiedt p2p-filterplicht voor ISP's
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
Rejo Zenger: ISP's hoeven niet te filteren op inbreuk auteursrecht
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
A report by Deloitte.
From the EC website:
"The overall objective of the study (SMART 2007/0030) was to provide analysis of the impacts of different policy options for the preparation of the Digital Agenda for Europe, one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The final report contains an individual assessment of several policy areas: next generation access deployment; net neutrality and digital rights; digital content; user empowerment and the role of the EU in the international ICT arena. The analysis included outcomes from existing studies, surveys, hearings and consultations."
Deloitte: Background document in support of the Digital Agenda for Europe (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
European Commission: Digital Agenda for Europe - Background analysis (SMART 2007/0030)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
A judgment by the honourable Mr Justice Tugendhat.
From paragraphs 180-182:
"There is a large body of law prohibiting the making by suppliers of false and misleading claims as to the supposedly good qualities of their goods and services. [...] Until the internet made it possible for individuals to communicate with the public at large at virtually no cost, there did not appear to be a need for similar regulations to prevent the making of false and misleading claims as to the supposedly bad qualities of the goods and services of suppliers. Such false claims were made unlawful by torts such as defamation and malicious falsehood, and the economic torts. But these are not enforced on behalf of the public by public authorities. Victims are left to pursue their own civil law remedies for their own benefit. However, the public as consumers need protection not only from false claims to the supposedly good quality of goods and services, but also from false claims to the supposedly bad quality of goods and services. [...] If restrictions are to be enforced on behalf of the public, Parliament normally does this by legislation which makes the conduct in question a criminal offence. The [Data Protection Act] goes some way towards this. It can protect from unfair discrimination those suppliers who trade as individuals, as solicitors happen to do, as well as employees or prospective employees. And it does create criminal offences and a mechanism for enforcement by the Information Commissioner. Where the DPA does not apply, the suppliers who have large resources may invoke the common law to protect themselves. But there is a need for someone to protect the public. The procedural remedy of representative proceedings, coupled with an injunction, may be the best that the law can offer at present to protect the public from the unjustifiable dissemination of false information about the suppliers of goods and services. It is also the means by which the court may protect its limited resources in time and judiciary from having to deal with large numbers of claims by different claimants against the same individual on the same or similar facts."
Mr Justice Tugendhat: Judgement ([2011] EWHC 3185 (QB)) (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
HawkTalk: Judgement reinforces the link between "lawful processing", the First Data Protection Principle and human rights / other laws
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
A publication by Amberhawk Training Limited.
From the annotation of the press release:
"I have decided to annotate the press release because it does not, in my view, even pass the standard of being 'economical with the truth'. This Press Release turns 'misleading by omission' into an art form."
Amberhawk Training Limited: A review of the annexes to the EU-USA PNR agreement and related press release (PDF)
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
EFF: New agreement between the United States and Europe will compromise the privacy rights of international travelers
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
HawkTalk: EU/USA PNR Agreement: data protection is weak, proportionality not guaranteed, and obvious safeguards absent
[Open link in this window | Open link in new window]
