[chapter-delegates] Fwd: EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 3.7, 6 April 2005

[Veni Markovski]

FYI (and if you are not subscribed, perhaps you should be?
I am sending it because of point 7, but the others are also interesting:)

veni

>ist-Id: <edri-news.mailman.edri.org>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.edri.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/edri-news>,
>         <mailto:edri-news-request at mailman.edri.org?subject=subscribe>
>
>============================================================
>
>               EDRI-gram
>
>   biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
>
>           Number 3.7, 6 April 2005
>
>
>============================================================
>Contents
>============================================================
>
>1.  Secret minutes EU data retention meeting
>2.  No delay for EU biometric passports
>3.  German court confirms ISP blocking order
>4.  Rapporteur EU parliament: more liability for ISPs
>5.  First P2P prosecution case in Sweden
>6.  ISP self-regulation proposal film industry
>7.  Bulgarian ISPs ordered to remove websites
>8.  Germany: meta search engine responsible for hyperlinks
>9.  EDRI-member nominated in Blog contest
>10. Recommended reading: DRM
>11. Agenda
>12. About
>
>
>============================================================
>1. Secret minutes EU data retention meeting
>============================================================
>
>EDRI-gram has obtained 2 secret documents about the draft framework
>decision on data retention that unveil the positions of individual Member
>States when it comes to the scope, cost, scale and length of retention.
>The first document, published on the EDRI website, is the uncensored
>version of the latest draft framework decision from 24 February 2005, from
>the Working Party on cooperation in criminal matters to the Article 36
>Committee. Both groups are  made up of senior officials in the Justice and
>Home Affairs area, with the Committee in a general coordinating role  for
>the Council.
>
>In this document the Working Party reminds the Committee that the European
>Commission "had entered a scrutiny reservation on the legal basis for the
>proposal." Three explanatory paragraphs about the position of the
>Commission were deleted from the public version.
>
>In these, the Presidency (Luxembourg) is quoted to say that the Commission
>has not yet provided a written position nor a proposal for a proper first
>pillar directive (with full co-decision rights for the European
>Parliament). Therefore the JHA Council will just proceed as planned,
>ignoring the severe legal protest. "The Presidency concluded that on the
>present basis work on the draft Framework Decision should continue in line
>with the conclusions drawn at the Council on 2 December 2004, and recalled
>that the European Council Declaration of 25 March 2004 provided that
>measures on retention of traffic data should be examined with a view to
>their adoption by June 2005."
>
>The names of the individual Member States in the footnotes show which
>countries have lobbied the hardest for general surveillance of all
>citizens in the EU. For example Sweden wanted to extend the scope of data
>retention to all sorts of police cooperation (in stead of mere 'judicial'
>cooperation), while the UK wanted to reintroduce 'prevention' of crimes to
>the scope. The Belgian delegates expressed concerns about the provision in
>Article 7 allowing Member States to subject requests for hand-over of data
>to any conditions applying nationally. Belgium feared that some Member
>States would use the lack of dual criminality as an excuse not to hand
>over data to another country. Denmark was the only country who said they
>wanted to retain this provision.
>
>The minutes of the Working Party for cooperation in criminal matters from
>8 and 9 March 2005 provide even more insight in these debates between
>Member States. The Presidency has decided to eliminate national rules on
>the access to data from Article 7, in spite of protest by Denmark, Sweden,
>Germany, Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Malta, Lithuania and Latvia.
>"The second sentence will be cut and pasted in modified wording into a
>footnote explaining the position of some Member States who supported the
>conservation."
>
>The Working Party had a difficult meeting on the issues of cost and scale
>and type of data to be retained. The notes from the first document show
>the Legal Service of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers
>expressed reservations about the plan to include a very broad functional
>list of data that should be retained, and in stead, proposed 'a
>technically more detailed list and a mechanism to revise that list'.
>Germany, Austria, Finland and Poland supported this position. The Czech
>Republic did not get any support for its efforts to change the specific
>list into a list of options out of which Member States could choose. The
>Presidency concluded that the framework decision should not become to
>specific, and possibly contain an attachment with technical specifications
>with a possibility to update that (mandatory) list. Germany and Austria
>tried to exclude unsuccessful connections, but were outnumbered by
>protests from a.o. Denmark, Malta, Spain and Slovakia.
>
>Debating the length of retention, Italy seems to have finally won a
>majority for its 48 months maximum (in stead of 36 months), supported by
>France and Poland (in favour of not mentioning any maximum). Again, the
>Czech Republic found hardly any support for its attempt to get rid of the
>minimum period of 6 months. Only the UK saw some advantages, but Germany
>insisted on the minimum of 6 months, arguing that competition in the EU
>might be disturbed if Member States could opt for a lesser period. In the
>Czech Republic a new telecommunication law will enter into force on 1 May
>2005, granting full cost reimbursement to providers for wiretapping and
>data retention. The draft Framework Decision leaves it entirely up to
>Member States to deal with the costs of data retention. Germany and the
>Netherlands found no support for their initiative to harmonise cost
>division in the EU (without giving any opinion on who should bear the
>costs, government or industry).
>
>Last but not least, the delegates debated about access to data. Sweden
>proposed to limit access to "investigation, detection and prosecution of
>criminal offences", but Belgium immediately protested that providers
>should be able to use the data for commercial purposes. The Presidency
>supported this latter viewpoint, claiming that the provider is the owner
>of the data "and therefore it is difficult to limit its access to data."
>
>The next JHA Council takes place on 14 April 2005, but the draft framework
>decision on data retention has been removed from the schedule. The next
>meeting of the Working Party takes place on 19 April 2005.
>
>Uncensored report from the Working Party to the Article 36 Committee
>(24.02.2005)
>http://www.edri.org/docs/uncensored.pdf
>
>============================================================
>2. No delay for EU biometric passports
>============================================================
>
>The United States will not allow for any further delay in the introduction
>of biometric identifiers in passports of EU citizens travelling to the US.
>EU Justice Commissioner Frattini sent an urgent letter to the US Congress
>asking for a delay of 10 months in introducing biometrics in the passports
>of all EU citizens. In his letter, Frattini states only six EU countries -
>Belgium, Germany, Austria, Finland, Sweden and Luxembourg - are able to
>meet the original deadline of 26 October this year. But on 31 March 2005
>the chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, James Sensenbrenner,
>replied that an extension was unlikely.
>
>On 3 December 2004 the Council of ministers of Justice and Home Affairs
>(JHA Council) adopted a new regulation on biometrics, forcing member
>states to include two biometric identifiers in passports and travel
>documents: digitised fingerprints and a face scan. The regulation was
>published in the Official Journal on 29 December 2004. The technical
>standards were defined in a Commission decision on 28 February 2005. Face
>scans have to be included in all new passports before 28 August 2006,
>fingerprints before 28 February 2008.
>
>The US demands inclusion of a facial image on a contact-less chip in
>passports in order for EU citizens to continue to use the US Visa Waiver
>Program. The technical standards for the chip are defined by the
>International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). The US originally
>demanded the EU should comply with the demand for at least one  biometric
>identifier from October 2004 onwards, but allowed for a delay of 1 year.
>The US will not enforce the biometrics on its own citizens until the end
>of 2006.
>
>Since 30 September 2004 all visa-free travellers are photographed and
>fingerprinted upon arrival in the US. After 26 October 2005 all EU
>travellers to the US will also have to apply for a visa on top of being
>subjected to hassle at the border to verify their biometrics. EU
>Commission spokesperson Friso Roscam Abbing told IDG news service the
>Commission is considering a counter-attack. "The EU will decide in the
>next couple of weeks if it will require U.S. citizens to obtain visas to
>travel to EU countries if their U.S. passports lack digitised facial
>data."
>
>On 30 March the Commission released a new study about the future of
>biometrics in the EU. The study was ordered by the Europarl Committee on
>Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in June
>2004. The study predicts a giant boost in the use of biometrics in
>everyday life, once businesses follow-up on the mass acceptation of
>biometrics in passports. This 'diffusion effect' will cause a need for new
>legislation. Another main conclusion of the study is the need to recognise
>the limitations of biometrics "and the difference that can exist between
>the perception and the reality of the sense of security provided." But, as
>long as the purposes of biometric applications are clearly defined and
>there is some fall-back procedure in case of failure, the study sees a
>very bright future for an EU biometrics industry. It is a good thing if
>governments take the lead with biometrics, because "the unregulated
>exploitation of intellectual property rights to aspects of biometrics can
>significantly reduce competition in biometrics and/or distort development,
>direction and speed of uptake." (p. 16)
>
>The study presents 4 different scenario's with plenty of examples of
>future use, ranging from the need to use a finger-scan to start an
>electronic game to presenting a facial scan to be able to use public
>transport. Possibly schools will use a combination of voice and iris
>recognition to identify the correct parent and nurses may want to take DNA
>samples from each newly born.
>
>Under the summary of privacy-issues the study finds that in general, the
>existing legal framework for data protection is adequate, but concerns may
>be raised about 'the way the digital data is produced, stored, compared
>and possibly linked to other information about the individual'. These
>concerns only seem to affect business applications, for example when the
>study warns about people trading in their privacy in exchange for some
>commercial advantage.
>
>Aside from a general remark about an (unfounded) fear of 'surveillance
>society' the study doesn't condemn the current aspirations in many member
>states to create a central database with biometric identifiers. It might
>hurt state p.r., according to the study. "If the precise purpose of
>holding such data is not clear, or considered ethical and responsible,
>then this may create a negative impression among citizens. Similarly, the
>blurring of government agency functionality, for example between
>immigration and law enforcement, may well be considered negatively by
>citizens." Only two of the 166 pages (authored by the Dutch legal
>professor Paul de Hert) explicitly address fundamental privacy concerns.
>"Common sense pushed people to adopt a critical attitude (that regrettably
>is hardly echoed in the current legal framework), refusing to accept
>simple answers about safety and protection when there is little evidence
>that security technology actually makes us safer." (p. 90)
>
>IDG: Possible U.S.-EU fight looms over biometric passports (04.04.2005)
>http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,100859,00.html
>
>Commission decision C(2005) 409 (official version in German and French,
>28.02.2005)
>http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents/doc/c_2005_409_de.pdf
>http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents/doc/c_2005_409_fr.pdf
>
>Unofficial translation in English
>http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/documents/doc/c_2005_409_prov_en.pdf
>
>Council Regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in
>passports and travel documents issued by Member States (10.12.2004)
>http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/04/st15/st15152.en04.pdf
>
>EDRI-gram: Rush vote European Parliament on biometrics (02.12.2004)
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.23/biometrics
>
>Biometrics at the Frontiers: Assessing the impact on society (30.03.2005)
>http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/freetravel/doc/biometrics_eur21585_en.pdf
>
>New EU study predicts boost in use of biometrics (31.03.2005)
>http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18758
>
>============================================================
>3. German court confirms ISP blocking order
>============================================================
>
>E-zine Heise reports that the Administrative Court of Cologne on 31 March
>2005 has once more approved of an order to force ISPs to block 2 neo-nazi
>websites hosted in the US. The order was issued by the district government
>of Nordrhein-Westfalen in 2002 and aimed at 80 different providers in the
>region. The providers already saw 7 legal attempts fail to lift the order.
>Only 1 attempt, on 31 October 2002 at the administrative court of Minden,
>was successful, in allowing suspension of execution of the order pending
>full proceedings. A well-known critic of the blocking order, Alvar Freude,
>also lost his case on 7 October 2004, and was fined the equivalent amount
>of money of 120 days prison sentence. Freude appealed.
>
>The blocking order is justified, according to the Cologne court and other
>courts before, because the websites violate different provisions of the
>criminal law, and thus also violate the new national treaty on youth media
>protection (entered into force on 1 April 2003). Furthermore, attempts to
>address the owners of the websites were unsuccessful and the economical
>costs of blocking the sites are low, according to the Court. The providers
>may appeal at the higher administrative court of Muenster, 'because of the
>constitutional implications of the verdict'.
>
>Experts have long doubted the effectivity of the blocking order.
>EDRI-member FITUG protested in 2003 that "Information legally and widely
>available in the country of origin is decreed to be made invisible
>throughout Germany. This reminds us of a very bad experience in Germany's
>not so glorious past when Germans were not allowed to listen to foreign
>radio stations like BBC London."
>
>Verwaltungsgericht KЖln bestДtigt SperrungsverfЭgung in NRW (31.03.2005)
>http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/58122
>
>Government overview of previous court cases (in German)
>http://www.bezreg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/BezRegDdorf/hierarchie/aufgaben/Abteilung_2/Dezernat_21/Medienmissbrauch/Gerichtliche_Entscheidungen_zu_den_Sperrverf__gungen_bzgl_rechtsextremistischer_Internet___Inhalte.php
>
>Original order of the district government of Nordrhein-Westfalen (13.02.2002)
>http://www.bezreg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/BezRegDdorf/autorenbereich/Dezernat_21/PDF/39sperrverf_022002.pdf
>
>Fitug statement (28.01.2003)
>http://www.fitug.de/news/pes/21012003_en.html
>
>EDRI-gram: Germany attempts to censor website on censorship (06.10.2004)
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.19/censor
>
>============================================================
>4. Rapporteur EU parliament: more liability for ISPs
>============================================================
>
>Rapporteur Marielle De Sarnez (French, Liberal) of the European Parliament
>Committee on Culture and Education has released her opinion on the
>proposal of the European Commission to create a new Recommendation on the
>Protection of Minors and Human Dignity. The report deals with two issues;
>more liability for ISPs and the introduction of a legal right to reply.
>
>According to De Sarnez "(...)businesses cannot escape their
>responsibilities under the pretext that parental control is needed to be
>exercised and governments have a duty to introduce rules that will protect
>the weakest members of society." That's why 'the liability of access
>providers needs to be established.' All access providers must create an
>effective and easy-to-use filter system for children. "Efficient filter
>technologies exist for the Internet and mobile phones. They are expensive
>but can be used by the operators present in the market. All that is needed
>is the political and economic will to distribute them."
>
>Besides, all site providers, producers or distributors must 'describe
>proposed content/sites with an update every six months to make it easier
>to classify sites using abbreviations common to all Member States.'
>Apparently, De Sarnez is thinking of introducing a total ban on internet
>publications, unless the proposed content has been classified in advance.
>Hard to understand is also the call on governments to oblige 'creators and
>producers to post warning banners on all search engines drawing attention
>to possible dangers.' Warning! triple x content available <here>!
>
>Finally, De Sarnez wants to introduce "a European toll-free number
>providing information on existing filter methods intended to offset the
>absence in some Member States of telephone hotlines". These hotlines could
>have their powers extended "to include the authority to report harmful
>sites which, even if it relies on subjective judgements, would make it
>possible to identify such sites so that legal proceedings against the
>authors could be brought in the future."
>
>On the second issue, the right of reply, the rapporteur wants all EU
>governments to rapidly introduce a right of reply "to protect any legal or
>natural person from any information presenting inaccurate facts concerning
>that person and affecting his or her rights." Following the Recommendation
>from the Council of Europe on the Right of Reply (15.12.2004) quite
>literally, De Sarnez wants the right of reply to apply to any medium,
>defined as 'any means of communication for the periodic dissemination to
>the public of edited information, whether on-line or off-line, such as
>newspapers, periodicals, radio, television and web-based news services."
>The reply should get the same prominence as the contested information.
>
>Draft report De Sarnez (14.03.2005)
>http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/PR/547/547671/547671en.pdf
>
>Proposal Commission: Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and Human
>Dignity
>http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/legis/key_doc/legispdffiles/com04-341-en.pdf
>
>REC 2004 - 16 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
>(15.12.2004)
>http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/press/News/2004/rec(2004)16.asp
>
>EDRI-gram: Council of Europe insists on right of reply (29.12.2005)
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.25/reply
>
>============================================================
>5. First P2P prosecution case in Sweden
>============================================================
>
>In Sweden, for the first time an individual internet user is prosecuted
>for file-sharing. A young man from VДsterЕs has shared the film 'Hip Hip
>Hora' via the Internet and is theoretically facing a maximum of 2 years
>prison sentence. But the public prosecutor doesn't have a lot of
>confidence in the case. ⌠As these cases do not involve criminals, but
>instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence
>would certainly be suspended,■ Uppsala prosecutor Katrin RudstrЖm told the
>newspaper Aftonbladet. Most likely, the case will result in a fine. In
>that case, the Swedish right-holders will have a hard time starting mass
>court cases against Swedish file-sharers, because they cannot demand
>identifying information in case of offences that can be settled with
>financial penalties.
>
>Meanwhile, Bahnhof, the oldest and largest Swedish ISP, has reached an
>agreement with the Swedish anti-piracy group AntipiratbyrЕn (APB), thus
>ending a hilarious P.R. battle between the two. On 10 March 2005, APB
>convinced police enforcement to raid the offices of the ISP without prior
>notice and confiscate 4 servers. Triumphantly, the MPA issued a press
>release announcing 'the file-sharing industry in Sweden was crippled'. But
>Bahnhof hit back, and accused the anti-piracy group of uploading the
>illegal material themselves. The rest of the material was allegedly
>uploaded by employees who acted without their employers knowledge. Bahnhof
>fired them.
>
>First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net (24.03.2005)
>http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1172&date=20050324
>
>MPAA: Raid on Sweden▓s Oldest and Largest ISP Cripples European Piracy
>Scene (in MS-word only, 11.03.2005)
>http://www.mpaa.org/MPAAPress/2005/2005_03_11.doc
>
>Aftonbladet: Case against internet-provider terminated (Swedish, 04.04.2005)
>http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/it/story/0,2789,626694,00.html
>
>============================================================
>6. ISP self-regulation proposal entertainment industry
>============================================================
>
>The MPA (Motion Picture Association) and the IFPI (International
>Federation of the Phonographic Industry) are pushing for a new
>collaboration with internet service providers in Europe. The MPA has
>drafted a 'possible ISP-Film Sector Voluntary Code of Conduct', while the
>IFPI called for a similar code in relation to the music sector during a
>conference of European telecom network operators (ETNO).
>
>The industry demands that providers "remove references and links to sites
>or services that do not respect the copyrights of rights holders".
>Providers should also collectively adopt new terms and conditions, to
>'require subscribers to consent in advance to the disclosure of their
>identity in response to a reasonable complaint of intellectual property
>infringement by an established right holder defence organisation or by
>right holder(s) whose intellectual property is being infringed,' thus
>overruling the essential privacy-protection of internet subscribers and
>without mentioning any right of reply.
>
>The copyright industry doesn't stop there. It also wants providers to
>develop 'prototype instant messaging language directed at infringers' and
>a termination of contract for 'recidivists'. Just in case the EU doesn't
>introduce mandatory data retention, in spite of the repeated lobby of MPAA
>and IFPI, the providers should voluntarily preserve data/evidence
>necessary to enforce copyright. And if that isn't enough, ISPs should
>implement filtering technology to block services and sites that are
>'substantially dedicated to illegal file sharing or download services.'
>
>But the most ludicrous demand is the following: "To enforce terms of
>service that prohibit a subscriber from operating a server, or from
>consuming excessive amounts of bandwidth where such consumption is a good
>indicator of infringing activities."
>
>The promoters of the document seem inspired by a French code of conduct
>signed on 28 July 2004 by 3 French ministers, representatives of the music
>industry and major ISPs and telecom operators. This code builds on the
>French e-commerce legislation (providing for notice and take down
>measures, see a.o. EDRI-gram 2.12) and the revised French privacy and
>personal data protection legislation. Under the new data protection act,
>collecting societies and similar representatives of intellectual property
>rights have the right to create files with telecommunication traffic data
>of supposed copyright infringers to 'mutualise the battle against the
>piracy of works' (see EDRI-gram 2.15). The code has already been used to
>terminate the contracts of subscribers. It also encourages right-holders
>societies to sue P2P users. According to a recent article by the French
>weekly magazine 'Le Point', these cases have led to 'a la carte'
>penalties, corresponding to the commercial sales price of a song.
>
>ETNO has already responded indirectly to these new demands, in a response
>to the consultation from the Article 29 Working Party of EU data
>protection authorities. "ETNO Members are also concerned by the constant
>pressure to overturn the provisions of the E-Commerce Directive
>(2000/31/EC) on ISP liability in order to create a situation where
>intermediaries are liable for illegal content transmitted across their
>networks.  The Directive states very clearly that no systematic obligation
>of surveillance or monitoring should be imposed on ISPs. Furthermore,
>Article 15 of this Directive establishes that ISPs should be subject to no
>general obligation to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating
>illegal activities." And: "In particular, ETNO fully agrees with the
>Working Document▓s conclusion that personal data can only be transferred
>in very defined cases provided by Law, only to Public Law Enforcement
>Authorities, and not to right-holders directly."
>
>The debate will continue during an open WIPO seminar on ISP liability in
>Geneva, on 18 April 2005.
>
>Announcement WIPO seminar on ISP liability (Geneva, 18.04.2005)
>http://www.wipo.int/meetings/2005/wipo_iis/en/
>
>Music biz calls on European ISPs to act against P2P sharing (08.03.2005)
>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70163/music-biz-calls-on-european-isps-to-act-against-p2p-sharing.html
>
>French code of conduct: 'Charte d▓engagements pour le dИveloppement de
>l▓offre lИgale de musique en ligne, le respect de la propriИtИ
>intellectuelle et la lutte contre la piraterie numИrique' (28.07.2004)
>www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/actualites/conferen/donnedieu/charte280704.htm
>
>Le Point: Piratage - Des sanctions Ю la carte (31.03.2005)
>http://www.lepoint.fr/pointcom/document.html?did=160790
>
>ETNO response to WP 29 consultation on DRM (March 2005)
>http://www.etno.be/upload/down_files/9241/RD213%20-%20CL%20DP%20issues%20related%20to%20IPR.doc
>
>EDRI-gram 2.12: Notice and take down procedure validated in French law
>(16.06.2004)
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.12/len
>
>EDRI-gram 2.15: New French data protection act not unconstitutional
>(04.08.2004)
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number2.15/frenchdpa
>
>(Thanks to Meryem Marzouki, EDRI-member IRIS)
>
>============================================================
>7. Bulgarian ISPs ordered to remove websites
>============================================================
>
>On 24 March 2005 the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior issued a radical
>order to Bulgaria's largest internet providers. Within 7 days the ISPs
>"must remove all free hosting servers which offer works, audio records,
>entertaining or business software, images, pictures, books, graphical
>logos, etc." and notify the department. Remarkably, the order isn't
>limited to copyright infringement, but bluntly seems to ban all content on
>free hosting servers.
>
>ISPs in Bulgaria are not forbidden to offer free hosting though, but can
>only provide free servers larger than 100 MB to identified customers.
>"More than 100 MB of webspace should be given only to customers with a
>signed user contract, accompanied with a copy of their ID card or relevant
>valid document for identification."
>
>The order was issued by colonel Boyko Donchev Nikolov, chief of the
>department 'Intellectual property, trademark, computer crimes and
>gambling' within the Ministry of the Interior, in order to stop possible
>copyright infringement. But the order also obliges providers to remove any
>other websites, images, pictures and texts that violate Bulgarian law,
>such as "racial hatred propaganda, pornography, pedophilia, nazism, and
>websites for gambling and etc."
>
>A spokesperson from provider BOL told the german e-zine Heise that ISPs
>are very concerned about the impossible time frame to obtain identity
>papers from many of their customers. As a first measure providers will
>stop their internal search engines, as they might lead customers to
>copyright infringing contents.
>
>Veni Markovski from EDRI-member Internet Society Bulgaria comments: "We
>consider this as an effort by the Police to make ISPs fully liable for the
>content their customers provide. Currently, ISPs in Bulgaria can only be
>held liable if they are first properly notified (on paper) by the police
>about illegal content and secondly would refuse to remove the content. The
>order seems to be part of a P.R. campaign from the Ministry of the
>Interior against illegal content. Several people have recently been
>charged with online teenage pornography, and they use the momentum to
>create good will with holders of intellectual property rights."
>
>Bulgarien: Webspace nur gegen Personalausweis (31.03.2005)
>http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/58114
>
>============================================================
>8. Germany: meta search engine responsible for hyperlinks
>============================================================
>
>A Berlin court has ruled on 22 February 2005 that a meta search engine has
>exactly the same legal responsibilities as a regular search engine to
>prevent users from accessing illegal content. A meta search engine doesn't
>have any databases of itself that could contain possibly illegal content,
>but should be able to filter the results from other search engines anyhow,
>according the Berlin ruling.
>
>The case results from a complaint by a female television host, who tried
>to prevent the search engine from producing links to possible nude
>pictures of her. In fact, the links refer to erotic sites that falsely use
>the names of many media-personalities in combination with the word
>'naked'. The search engine declined it was possible to prevent these
>results from appearing.
>
>The ruling didn't enter into effect immediately. The operator of the meta
>search engine has appealed and must prove he's unable to block specific
>results from other search engines and prove it is technically impossible
>to create adequate blocking.
>
>Summary and full verdict Landgericht Berlin (22.02.2005)
>http://www.aufrecht.de/3867.html
>
>Meta search engine
>http://www.apollo7.de
>
>============================================================
>9. EDRI-member nominated in Blog contest
>============================================================
>
>Reporters Without Borders has opened an awards competition for blogs
>defending freedom of expression. The blog of Markus Beckedahl from
>EDRI-member Neue Medien Netzwerk, www.netzpolitik.org is nominated by RSF
>as best international blog promoting freedom of expression.
>
>Until 1 June 2005 all Internet-users may vote online for award-winners
>from among 60 blogs defending freedom of expression. There are six
>categories: Africa and the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, Europe, Iran
>and International.
>
>Voters registration
>http://www.internet.rsf.org
>
>============================================================
>10. Recommended reading: DRM
>============================================================
>
>Cory Doctorow, the European Affairs Coordinator from the Electronic
>Frontier Foundation (US) has written an excellent statement outlining the
>dangers of Digital Rights Management. The statement is signed by several
>other digital rights organisations, including European Digital Rights and
>was presented to the ITU-R Working Party 6M Report on Content Protection
>in March 2005.
>
>Digital Rights Management: a failure in the developed world, a danger to
>the developing world
>http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/itu_drm.php
>
>============================================================
>11. Agenda
>============================================================
>
>6-8 April 2005, Belfast, Ireland, BILETA 2005
>Over-Commoditised; Over-Centralised; Over-Observed: the New Digital Legal
>World?
>http://www.law.qub.ac.uk/bileta2005/callforpapers.html
>
>12 April 2005, Deadline funding applications
>Civil rights organisations and initiatives are invited to send funding
>applications to the German foundation 'Bridge - BЭrgerrechte in der
>digitalen Gesellschaft'. A total of 15.000 euro is available for
>applications that promote civil rights in the digitised society.
>http://www.stiftung-bridge.de
>
>12-15 April 2005, Seattle, USA, CFP 2005
>The 15th annual Computer, Freedom, Privacy Conference will be held in the
>Westin Hotel in Seattle, Washington with the leading theme 'Panopticon'.
>http://www.cfp2005.org
>
>14-16 April 2005, Padova, Italy, FLOSS 2005
>http://www.floss2005.org/
>
>21 May 2005, London, UK
>Conference: Suspect Communities, the real 'war on terror' in Europe
>http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/hrsj/events/events_home.cfm
>
>27-28 May 2005, Florence, Italy, E-Privacy Conference 2005
>This edition of the foremost Italian conference on privacy in the digital
>age will focus on automatic data collection and retention. The organising
>committee is inviting papers from possible speakers. The deadline for
>submitting papers and presentations is 17 April, notification of
>acceptance will be given on 24 April. During the conference the first
>Italian Big Brother Award Ceremony will be held in the stunningly
>beautiful Palazzo Vecchio.
>http://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it/
>
>6-11 June 2005, Benevento (Naples), Italy
>Digital Communities 2005
>http://www.ssc.msu.edu/~espace/DC2005.html
>
>13 June 2005, Brussels, Belgium
>European Commission Information day on the Safer Internet Plus Program.
>Further information and registration forms will be available at the
>end of April 2005
>http://europa.eu.int/saferinternet
>
>17-18 June 2005, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>3d Amsterdam Internet Conference organised by OSCE Representative on
>Freedom of the Media
>
>11-15 July 2005, Genova, Italy, OSS 2005
>http://oss2005.case.unibz.it/index.html
>
>28-31 July 2005, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
>What The Hack, major open air hacker / internet lifestyle event. Reduced
>early bird entrance fee available until 10 May 2005.
>http://www.whatthehack.org/
>
>8-9 September 2005, Brussels, Belgium
>EuroSOCAP Workshop on confidentiality and privacy in healthcare
>3 year programme to develop new ethical standards for privacy and patient
>access to (electronical) files, started on 31 January 2003.
>http://www.eurosocap.org
>
>============================================================
>12. About
>============================================================
>
>EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.
>Currently EDRI has 17 members from 11 European countries. European Digital
>Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession
>countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the
>EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content or agenda-tips are
>most welcome.
>
>Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the
>Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at
>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
>
>Newsletter editor: Sjoera Nas <edrigram at edri.org>
>
>Information about EDRI and its members:
>http://www.edri.org/
>
>- EDRI-gram subscription information
>
>subscribe by e-mail
>To: edri-news-request at edri.org
>Subject: subscribe
>
>You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request.
>
>unsubscribe by e-mail
>To: edri-news-request at edri.org
>Subject: unsubscribe
>
>- EDRI-gram in Russian, Ukrainian and Italian
>
>EDRI-gram is also available in Russian, Ukrainian and Italian, a few days
>after the English edition. The contents are the same.
>
>Translations are provided by Sergei Smirnov, Human Rights Network, Russia;
>Privacy Ukraine and autistici.org, Italy
>
>The EDRI-gram in Russian can be read on-line via
>http://www.hro.org/editions/edri/
>
>The EDRI-gram in Ukrainian can be read on-line via
>http://www.internetrights.org.ua/index.php?page=edri-gram
>
>The EDRI-gram in Italian can be read on-line via
>http://www.autistici.org/edrigram/
>
>- Newsletter archive
>
>Back issues are available at:
>http://www.edri.org/edrigram
>
>- Help
>
>Please ask <admin at edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or
>unsubscribing.
>
>============================================================
>Publication of this newsletter is made possible by a grant from
>the Open Society Institute (OSI).
>============================================================