WebProNews

Tag: European Union

  • ACTA Supporters Might Resort To Dirty Tactics For Approval

    The response to ACTA throughout Europe has been the stuff of legends. People from all walks of life have taken to the streets to protest the amendments in the treaty that only help to serve copyright industries while hurting the Internet in much the same way that SOPA proposed. The political response to the protest has also been encouraging with many nations refusing to back the bill, but it could soon all be for naught.

    Techdirt has stumbled upon some rather disturbing movements within the pro-ACTA movement. It looks like the main pro-ACTA forces are using one of three tactics to get the treaty pushed through – arguments, delays, or if all else fails, outright secrecy. All three tactics could work, but it’s the last that is the most worrisome.

    Let’s stick with the traditional ways of getting it approved for now. First up is the argument that ACTA is absolutely necessary to police the ever evolving Internet and protect never evolving copyright industry. It’s like dinosaur scientists wanting to create a shield out of tar and twigs to protect themselves from their own impending doom at the hands of an asteroid.

    The more likely scenario out of the first two is a delay on the vote. Some members of the EU Parliament are hoping to either build up more support, or rewrite ACTA to remove the more offensive bits. The only problems is that the offensive bits is what makes ACTA the treaty that it is. Many people from within the various industries that built the treaty want these provisions (like internet policing and restrictions on generic drugs) to save their own hides against the ever marching giant of progress.

    Unfortunately, there’s an even worse solution to ACTA on the horizon. It’s been rumored now that members of the EU Parliament will push through a vote using secret ballots. What is a secret ballot, you ask? It essentially lets all the members of Parliament vote anonymously so they can’t be held accountable for said vote. Say what you will about our own Congress, but they would never be allowed to get away with something that heinous.

    It’s almost kind of ironic really. The very thing the Internet is trying to protect – anonymity – is being used to save the asses of those who want to destroy the greatest thing the Internet ever gave to mankind. It’s just another sad double standard that governments around the world love to employ.

    The one hope left is that news of the secret ballot gets out. The anti-ACTA protests have been a little on the slow side now that all of Europe is rightly concerned with the current debt crisis. A treaty like ACTA would do nothing to help grow the economy, so here’s hoping that the citizenry understands that and responds appropriately.

    ACTA news has been slow coming, once again due to the debt crisis, but we’ll keep watching the situation. It looks like the vote will be coming to a head soon and we’ll be here to let you know what happens to SOPA’s big international daddy.

  • G-20 Summit Will Meet In Los Cabos, Mexico To Discuss European Crisis

    To say that the eurozone crisis is, well, a crisis would be an understatement. Its collapse would put a halt on any economic progress that has been made over the past few years. With the election in Greece on Sunday pushing tensions to all new highs, world leaders need to find a solution and fine one fast. A meeting in Mexico next week may provide that solution.

    According to Reuters, the G-20 Summit will be meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico to discuss the current economic crisis in Europe. It’s unfortunate as well since it looks like leaders will not make any progress on preventing the problems that caused the economic collapse in the first place. When it comes to problems like this, the first step is to fix the problem and then fix what caused it. Unfortunately, fixing this particular problem will probably be harder than anything that has come before it.

    Besides a potential collapse of the Eurozone, the countries contained within it are causing problems among themselves by pointing fingers and yelling at each other. It was reported that Germany and France are now fighting each other over how to fix the economic crisis with Germany pushing for austerity measures while France pushes for economic growth. At this moment, both options seem a little far fetched and can only go so far.

    Fortunately, there’s another meeting coming up soon that may yield better results than the expected turnout next week. The European Union will hold a summit later this month where the leaders within the EU will discuss how to contain the debt crisis. The talk going around the members of the G-20 seem to indicate next week’s meeting will only be used to set up discussions at the EU summit later this month according to aides speaking to Reuters.

    It should be noted that Americans have a lot at stake in these talks as well. It would be in the citizen’s best interest to pay attention to the G-20 Summit next week and see what comes out of it. Whatever happens in Europe will indirectly affect us here in the U.S. including our beloved tech economy. If you thought the Facebook IPO, just wait to see as everybody’s market value gets kicked in the teeth if the Eurozone were to collapse.

    We all have a stake in this, including those of us in tech, so we’ll continue to watch this story as it develops. It will be interesting to see how Greece votes on Sunday. It could set Europe on the road to recovery or send it spiraling even more downward.

  • Google App. Offers EU Compliant Data Protection

    A lot of small businesses use Google apps to meet their needs and overcome challenges. In light of the European Union’s updated and more stringent data protection and privacy law, Google is offering an app. that will help their enterprise customers gain compliance with standards in Europe.

    Coming soon, Google will offer revised contract clauses that will meet EU standards. It’s actually all part of framework developed through the United States Department of Commerce and the EU which allows Europe’s data to be handled by US companies who are compliant with Safe Harbor guidelines to function and do business with the European nations.

    Essentially, the EU doesn’t allow anyone’s private or sensitive data to leave Europe unless its being managed by an organization adhering to a set of agreed upon standards which the Safe Harbor legislation more or less embodies. Google and about 2500 other US companies offer this as a service in Europe.

    By combining the new privacy clauses with Google’s continued participation in the Safe Harbor guidelines, customers can also be compliant with Europe’s privacy standards. It’s another way Google is making life easier for small businesses and individuals who do work internationally.

  • Dutch Pirate Party Scoffs At ACTA Rejection

    While the Dutch Parliament’s rejection of the ACTA treaty may be treated as good news by some, according to the Dutch Pirate Party, the move can be viewed as grandstanding on the part of Dutch officials who are up for reelection.

    In a statement to The Inquirer, Dutch Pirate Party spokesperson Dirk Poot indicated the move was too little, too late on the Parliament’s behalf because ACTA is still up for adoption by the European Union. Had the rejection been issued in November of last year, Europe would not be facing ACTA’s potential ratification. Poot is quoted as saying:

    “On the one hand we are happy that parliament finally seems to recognise the threats that ratification of ACTA would pose to Dutch citizens as well as to the Dutch innovative industries. It can be considered a win in that respect. On the other hand it is too little too late, and must be seen in the light of the coming elections rather than as a sign that the old school politicians are finally seeing the light. The same parties that now proudly boast of ‘stopping ACTA in the Netherlands’ are the same parties that have worked tirelessly to get ACTA pushed beyond the control of the Dutch parliament.”

    As pointed out in our previous article, it was the Dutch House of Representatives that spoke out against the treaty, urging their Cabinet to reject ACTA outright. Furthermore, Poot remains steadfast in his belief the rejection was just for show, and that ACTA still may be in the Dutch’s future:

    “The Netherlands by itself would never be able to withstand the immense pressure to be one of the few non-ratifying countries,” he added. “This would then open the way for the main proponents of ACTA in the Netherlands, Verhagen en Teeven, to claim that ACTA is inevitable.”

    All things considered, was this a move of defiance from the Dutch government or are they just trying to appease the voting public, one that has been outspoken against the concept of government-regulated Internet?

  • European Union Caught With Its Hand In The Cookie Jar

    Don’t you just hate cookies? Not the delicious sweets, but the kind that follow you around on the Web tracking your behavior. It seems that the European Union hates them too hence why the “Cookie Law” went into effect this week. The law requires any Web site targeting citizens in EU nation-states to ask for permission before installing cookies.

    From that description alone, it sounds like a pretty good law. It’s on par with our own proposed legislation to install “Do Not Track” buttons on Web browsers that serve American citizens. Unfortunately, the word of the law and the implementation of said law are vastly different. The good news is that the cookie law does work as advertised. The bad news is that the EU thinks that it’s above the law.

    ZDNet has found that Web sites run by the EU like the European Parliament and the European Commission are still installing cookies without asking for permission. It’s kind of hypocritical to impose a law and not follow it yourself, but there might be a loophole that the EU could exploit. The cookie law only applies to member states. It might be a frivolous distinction, but there is a difference between EU member states and EU institutions at large. Those installing cookies fall into the latter.

    ZDNet argues, however, that a loophole might not work this time around. They spoke to Stewart Room, data protection expert, and he says that the EU is bound by the 2001 Data Protection Regulation. One could argue that the use of cookies could be tantamount to processing personal data which would put the EU in direct conflict of its own laws.

    As mentioned previously, this smacks of the current debate over the “Do Not Track” button in the U.S. The idea is to give consumers an option to disable online tracking, which is often accomplished through cookies. We discussed in length on how such an option is good at face value, but does little to actually protect privacy.

    It remains to be seen if general Web sites within the EU will comply with the law or just work around it. If the government’s approach is any indication, it seems that the EU will have a bill with a pretty face that does little to protect the privacy that it claims to hold dear.

    For its part, an EU spokesperson seems to be ignorant to the governing body’s own sites still installing cookies without permission. The spokesperson offered to hear any proof that found the EU “not being transparent about cookies.” It’s a start, but we’ll have to see what the future holds. The law did just go into effect yesterday. We’ll keep you updated on both the cookie law and the “Do Not Track” button.

  • EU Antitrust Chief Offers Google Chance to Settle FairSearch Complaints

    EU Antitrust Chief Offers Google Chance to Settle FairSearch Complaints

    Google’s received a little bit of respite to resolve complaints of antitrust practices in the European Union, according to the Wall Street Journal. The European Commission has given the company the opportunity to offer up some remedies to antitrust complaints brought up by FairSearch, a coalition of Google rivals that includes Microsoft, Expedia, and Travelocity who claim Google is suffocating business competition by steering users of the search engine to other Google products instead of the most appropriate product.

    In a statement from the EU’s Competition Commissioner Joaquín Almunia, Google has expressed its willingness to work out a solution to the antitrust complaints in order to avoid any “adversarial proceedings” concerning four different areas of concern that could be argued as anticompetitive abuses. “I offer Google the possibility to come up in a matter of weeks with first proposals of remedies to address each of these points,” Almunia said.

    Almunia went on to explain that the potential to resolve the antitrust complaints swiftly would avoid drawn out legal proceedings and ultimately be in the best interest of consumers. “I believe that these fast-moving markets would particularly benefit from a quick resolution of the competition issues identified,” he added.

    The four areas of concern involve Google linking to its own vertical search services in search results, how Google uses content from competing vertical search services for its own purpose, use of search advertisement, and how AdSense prevents competitors from bidding on ad placement.

    In February of this year, the FairSearch Coalition announced that it would be expanding its presence to Europe. Upon the creation of FairSearch Europe, the group’s EU Counsel Thomas Vinje stressed that consumers in Europe should not be left with only one choice, Google, when it comes to internet search.

    Following Almunia’s invitation for Google to resolve the concerns from FairSearch, Vinje lauded the Commissioner’s decision as a validation of FairSearch’s complaints about Google’s practices. “FairSearch would welcome a rapid and permanent change in Google‟s business practices that could potentially result from a settlement between the European Commission and Google,” Vinje said. “We agree that a quick resolution to the harms that Google’s practices cause would be best for innovators and consumers.”

    However, Vinje added that he hopes Google will be more cooperative with the EU than the company was recently with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. During an investigation over Google’s eavesdropping on unencrypted wireless networks, the FCC fined the company for deliberately delaying and impeding the investigation. “Any settlement between Google and the EC would need to restore lost competition and remedy the anticompetitive effects of Google’s conduct in both specialized and general search,” he added.

    Almunia suggests that he believes that a common ground can be found between the EC and Google. “If Google comes up with an outline of remedies which are capable of addressing our concerns, I will instruct my staff to initiate the discussions in order to finalise a remedies package,” adding that any final proposals will need to be market-tested before they’re ratified by the Commission.

    While Almunia’s timeline is somewhat vague in saying that Google has “weeks” to address the complaints, it’s probably safe to assume that the two parties will be communications directly to agree upon a targeted date.

  • Google Will Meet With French Regulators Next Week

    France is heading up an investigation of Google’s new privacy policy and they represent all of Europe’s 27 union states with their inquiry. Google has agreed to meet with them next week to answer questions about the newly implemented policy. Ideally this meeting will answer all of Europe’s data regulators questions and resolve any ethical issues about the policy.

    Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, heads up the investigation and what is called the “Commission Nationale de l’Informatique”, the group in charge of the inquiry. She spoke with Reuters regarding the upcoming meeting.

    Here’s what she had to say:

    “We are not totally satisfied with their responses so we have set up this meeting to discuss the issues with Google,”

    “We want to untangle the precise way that specific personal data is being used for individual services, and examine what the benefit for the consumer really is,”

    There has been concerned expressed about Google’s privacy policy in almost every country including the United States, Europe, Japan, Argentina, and Canada. Reuters also heard from Google representative, Anthony House regarding the upcoming meeting and he commented on what Google hopes to accomplish during that time.

    Here’s what House has to say:

    “The meeting will give us chance to put things into context and explain the broader actions we are taking to protect our users’ privacy,”

    We’ll be watching for outcomes from this meeting closely and seeing what France has to report back to the rest of Europe. We’ll keep you updated as things continue to evolve out of Google’s new privacy policy and the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique. The meeting will be held on May 23rd.

  • The Pirate Bay Takes Its Case To The European Court

    The Pirate Bay Takes Its Case To The European Court

    We reported back in February that Sweden’s Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of The Pirate Bay’s founders. The verdict left their jail sentences and fines intact, but they had a few options available to them. One of those options was to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and it looks like one of the founders is doing just that.

    TorrentFreak is reporting that Fredrik Neij is taking his case to the ECHR. A statement from his lawyer says that Neij’s right to “receive and impart information” is being infringed. Such rights are guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The relevant section of Article 10 as pertaining to this case:

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    It appears that Neij and his lawyer are arguing that they only offered the service. It’s up to the users to decide whether or not to use The Pirate Bay for illegal activities. They also argue that they should not be held responsible for allowing the sharing of illegal content since the contents of the torrent files do not contain any illegal information.

    It’s a pretty good argument, and section 1 of Article 10 does provide protection “regardless of frontiers” which I would assume includes the Internet. It remains to be seen if the last sentence of section 1 will have any impact on this case. One could see The Pirate Bay as another option to gather information thus breaking up media monopolies which would be favorable to the court. I highly the doubt the court would hold such an opinion though.

    It’s important to note that they’re only going to the ECHR, because Sweden’s Supreme Court refused to hear the case. They feel that the court’s refusal only serves to make the law regarding torrents and copyright infringement murkier than it should be. A definitive decision, like with our own Supreme Court, helps to influence policy and laws in the future.

    Here’s hoping that the ECHR decides to hear the case. Without it, we might be stuck with a world where corporations, not governments, make the laws deciding what constitutes as piracy.

  • Ireland Uses Facebook App to Ensure Voter Registration

    Officials in Ireland are being creative when it comes to getting the word out about an upcoming referendum in Ireland. Silicon Republic is reporting that the Irish Referendum Commission will launch a Facebook app that will encourage and educate Facebook users about signing up to vote before an upcoming referendum on the European Fiscal Treaty.

    The Referendum Commission is hoping to use the social network aspect of Facebook to pass the information along. The app will walk users through the steps of checking the register to make sure they are registered to vote, and signing them up if they are not. After that, users can share the fact that they used the app and encourage their friends to do so as well. Silicon Republic quotes the chairman of the Referendum Comission, Mr. Justice Kevin Feeney, as saying:

    “It is particularly useful that users of this app can, with one click, tell all their Facebook friends about this and spread the word that they can check the register in a matter of seconds in this way. Every Irish citizen aged 18 or over on polling day is entitled to vote.”

    It’s smart for the Irish government to realize that not everyone will see a traditional advertising campaign. It’s possible that the commission saw how ineffective their fall advertising campaign was for some demographics, and decided to look at other options. That campaign relied on television commercials, such as this one, featuring a lovely accent:

    What do you think? Is the Irish government more technologically savvy than other western democracies, or will they simply be laughed off of Facebook? Leave a comment below and let me know.

    (Silicon Republic via AllFacebook)

  • ACTA Being Dissected In European Parliament

    Although the treaty has been rejected by some prominent members and advisors of the European Parliament, the ratification process is underway. No, this doesn’t mean ACTA will be ratified by parliament members, but it does mean that, despite on-record rejections, the approval/rejection process is going ahead as various committees debate ACTA’s pros and cons, before issuing an opinion to the European Parliament.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a revealing look at the process ACTA is currently being subjected to, and let’s just say the checks and balances system is being fully represented. As many as five committees are dissecting the treaty, in an effort to determine if ACTA will benefit European Union countries:

    The first step involves four committees: the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI), and the Development Committee (DEVE). Each must each review ACTA according to their Committee’s particular subject matter expertise, and deliver an opinion to the fifth and lead Committee, the International Trade Committee (INTA).

    The INTA Committee plays the key role of recommending ACTA’s adoption or rejection to European Parliament. While INTA’s opinion is highly influential, it is not binding.

    Which means ACTA could still be ratified by the European Union, regardless of the recommendations of rejection. That being said, the ratification process is much more complex, even after the recommendations of the five committees are received. Furthermore, even if the MEPs (Members of European Parliament) vote to accept ACTA as is–no amendments are allowed to be introduced during this process–the individual EU members must ratify ACTA for their country. The EFF’s article reveals more about this process:

    …individual EU member states must decide whether or not to ratify ACTA. This is because the agreement requires countries to put in place broader criminal sanctions for those who infringe IP, and for those who aid and abet them. EU law is not harmonized in relation to criminal penalties for IP infringement. Criminal laws are within the exclusive legislative power of the individual EU member states and so they must ratify ACTA for those provisions to be given effect. Five member states have now suspended ratification of ACTA (Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Netherlands and Bulgaria) and Germany has said that it will wait to see how the European Parliament votes before deciding to ratify.

    While the influence of these committees is hard to ignore, the EFF reveals ACTA survival (or its demise) depends a great deal on Parliamentary vote, with MEPs also possessing a great deal of power and influence in this regard:

    Everything comes down to how MEPs vote in the Parliamentary plenary vote. MEPs in European Parliament are members of political parties, and analysts in Europe are now trying to tabulate how the political party groups will vote on ACTA… the numbers look closer than you might think: 52.5% of the Parliament opposed to ACTA, to 47.5% in favor…

    Based on those final numbers, it’s pretty clear why the EFF is looking to silence the “ACTA is dead in Europe” talk. Aside from that being an incorrect way to look at the issue, it’s also dangerous because such an incorrect state of mind can cause complacency from the public, which could be mistaken as support and/or a state of acceptance for the treaty.

    Instead of growing complacent, the EFF recommends using your voice even louder than you did before. Make sure that members of the European Parliament can here those cries of ACTA rejection.

  • ACTA Is A Threat To Privacy Says European Data Protection Supervisor

    While the socially connected in the United States are focusing on subjects like CISPA, Kony 2012, and, apparently, something called “2 Chainz,” our friends across the pond are still dealing with ACTA, and the implications it represents. While the treaty hasn’t been ratified on an European Union level, there are a number of countries that signed it, leading to a great deal of protest from various EU countries like England, Germany, and Poland.

    While the issue is still being debated, a couple of prominent members/advisors to the Union have essentially rejected the ACTA treaty, saying it is a threat to individual freedom for EU citizens. The first to outspokenly reject ACTA was David Martin MEP, the current European Parliament Rapporteur. Actually, that’s false. The person Martin replaced, Kader Arif, resigned his postion in protest of the treaty, meaning that’s two for two in relation to European Parliament Rapporteur rejection of ACTA.

    Now you can add the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) to the pile of ACTA rejectors. From their perspective, ACTA is considered a threat to personal freedom. Furthermore, their report defines ACTA as a human rights violation:

    As a result, these measures will often constitute an interference with individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the rights to privacy, to data protection, and to the confidentiality of communications, protected in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

    In a press release (PDF) detailing their position, the content of which was taken from their 16-page report (PDF), the concerns for ACTA are as follows:

    • measures that allow the indiscriminate or widespread monitoring of Internet users’ behaviour, and/or electronic communications, in relation to trivial, small-scale, not for profit infringement would be disproportionate and in breach of Article 8 ECHR, Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the Data Protection Directive;
    • many of the voluntary enforcement cooperation measures would entail a processing of personal data by ISPs which goes beyond what is allowed under EU law;
    • ACTA does not contain sufficient limitations and safeguards, such as effective judicial protection, due process, the principle of the presumption of innocence, and the right to privacy and data protection.

    When you consider such a scathing response to the treaty, one wonders why the European Parliament hasn’t sent the document back to the drawing board. Consider this: not one, but two European Parliament Rapporteurs have rejected ACTA, and now, the EDPS has joined in with their rejection suggestion. It should be noted that the EDPS is, in his own words, an “independent supervisory authority devoted to protecting personal data and privacy and promoting good practice in the EU institutions and bodies.”

    With that in mind, how many more trusted professionals have to speak out against ACTA before the European Parliament acts in a manner befitting of their citizens, as well as their trusted advisors?

  • European Commission VP Pleads For an Open Web

    Neelie Kroes, the Vice President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda for Europe, gave a speech at the World Wide Web Conference 2012 in Lyon, France. In the speech she called on both governments and people to be ready to approach and protect the openness of the web.

    Kroes managed to touch on just about every divisive subject and question currently facing the internet. She comes down on the side of openness on the issue of consumer choice. She sees how, time and again, “walled gardens” on the internet have failed and how needless they are. She opposes net neutrality and doesn’t think ISP’s should be able to limit the web in any way.

    Kroes sees openness as inevitable, but also sees the obstacles to that goal:

    “The benefits of openness are clear. And when it’s as simple as an oppressive government trying to turn off the Internet, it’s clear that we need to do what we can to prevent that.

    “But in other cases, achieving openness is not always so straightforward.

    “Sometimes the problem is ancient, pre-digital rules that we need to cut back or make more flexible. Other times, openness actually flows from strengthening regulation.

    “And sometimes it’s not about changing the rules at all, but about changing a mindset. People need to realise: they don’t have to look backwards to the constraints and habits of the past; they can look forward to the open opportunities of the future. But that can take time.”

    Though Kroes is worried that putting too many limitations on the web could stifle “innovation and discovery,” she was careful to cover her political bases on the privacy issue. She stressed that “openness does not come at the expense of privacy or safety.” She believes that rights, responsibility, and the rule of low exist online as much as they do in our normal lives.

    Kroes seems sincere in her desires for openness, and she has been campaigning for open standards in all kinds of industries for a while now. She even has a YouTube channel filled with speeches on openness. So what do you think? Does she have the internet’s best interests at heart or is she making a smart, populist play for political gain? Let me know in the comments section below.

  • European Parliament Rapporteur Recommends Rejecting ACTA

    After replacing the disillusioned Kader Arif who resigned his rapporteur position due to his disagreement with ACTA, David Martin MEP is picking up where Arif left off, rejecting the principles on which ACTA was constructed, while suggesting the European Union reject the treaty altogether.

    While acknowledging IP protection is indeed an issue that needs addressing, Martin doesn’t feel ACTA is the way to go about it. He’s succinct in his recommendation:

    The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens’ rights in the future under ACTA. Your rapporteur therefore recommends that the European Parliament declines to give consent to ACTA… Following the expected revision of relevant EU directives, your rapporteur hopes the European Commission will therefore come forward with new proposals for protecting IP.[Emphasis added]

    Martin recommendation to the European Parliament was not the only forum he used to reject ACTA. After his proposal was posted, Martin wrote a guest post over at the Burdzeyeview blog, stating why the European Parliament should reject ACTA. Some highlights, first discussing some of the issues posed by ACTA:

    ACTA countries also want work together to tackle commercial-scale copyright violations online, and to stop some illegally operating companies making millions by uploading and charging for copyright-protected films and music. This brings in a whole new set of questions over the role of internet service providers in monitoring internet usage, and individual citizens’ right to privacy on the internet.

    From here, Martin discusses the ACTA negotiations; particularly the secrecy involved:

    The Agreement is also controversial because of the perceived secrecy surrounding the negotiations… the ACTA procedure was particularly opaque, and I and my Socialist and Democrat colleagues (the parliamentary grouping of the European Parliamentary Labour Party and our sister socialist parties) objected strongly to the relatively scant information we were receiving from the European Commission.

    While he acknowledged these complaints led to ACTA drafts being made public, from Martin’s perspective, that wasn’t enough. Martin then states his postion on ACTA in a clear and concise manner, saying ACTA is real threat to individual freedom:

    I agree with the stated aims of ACTA and the need for increased copyright protection to give European producers and creators the return on their innovation. We need it for the economic recovery, for job protection and creation and, in the case of products like car parts and medicines, we need it to keep dangerous and potentially life-threatening products off the market. But ACTA is too vague and there are real risks that over-zealous interpretations of the text could have a real impact on individual freedoms.

    One hopes the European Parliament follows suit, matching Martin’s clarity, while following through on his recommendation. If that happens, ACTA, for all intents and purposes, is dead:

    If the Parliament endorses my recommendation to reject it, ACTA will fall in the EU before the summer.

    Considering Martin’s comprehension and clarity on the issue, one wonders why American politicians can’t follow his lead and actually educate themselves about the legislation they are trying to pass. Furthermore, Martin openly acknowledged the public outcry in Europe was not something to be ignored.

    Conversely, when the Internet blackout opposing SOPA occurred, people like MPAA CEO Chris Dodd called it “irresponsible.” Clearly, Dodd needs to spend some time with David Martin. Maybe that way, some of Martin’s common sense concerning Internet regulation in the name of IP protection will sink into Dodd’s skull.

  • Google Antitrust Case In Europe: EU Eyes Post-Easter Decision

    Joaquin Almunia, who is leading an EU antitrust investigation of Google, has apparently decided not to decide anything on the matter until after Easter.

    Reuters reports that Almunia said on Wednesday that he would only decide after April 8, “whether to formally charge Google or drop an ongoing investigation”.

    The report quotes him as saying, “We want to advance in our investigation but we want to advance on a solid basis, not because of a letter or some pressures.”

    The letter he’s referencing, would likely be the one sent by the European Consumers’ Organisation, called for the regulation of Google, though the European Commission has received letters from other groups in the past as well.

    In the letter, European Consumers’ Organisation Director General Monique Goyens wrote, “Consumers use search engines on a daily basis to source the information most relevant to them and to access content of their choice. The fact that search engines select and rank results according to perceived relevance is, in general, of tremendous benefit to consumers. Consumers trust that search results are impartial and based solely on relevance to their query, without any manipulation of the order or results.”

    “However, we are concerned that the dominant search engine, Google, may have abused its position in the search market to direct users to its own services and secondly to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services. Google continues to expand its areas of activities and develop its own services and products. Given its role as gatekeeper to the internet, Google is in a unique position to restrict access to its competitors and direct traffic to its own services.”

    It’s going to be very interesting to see where Almunia lands in the Google case. Generally in matters of competition, Google has floated through regulation relatively unscathed. Last month, for example the DoJ approved the company’s Motorola Mobility acquisition.

  • European Union: New Google Privacy Policy Isn’t Lawful Or Fair

    Upon the eve of Google’s new and controversial Privacy Policy going into effect, the tech company received a resounding rebuke from the European Union yesterday as France’s regulator said that the new policy seems to violates the EU’s rules regarding data protection. Given the possibility, CNIL, the French administrative authority that monitors how companies collect and store personal data of users, was not won over by Google.

    With their initial findings not pleasing, CNIL penned a letter to Google CEO Larry Page on Monday that chided the company for failing to actually consult with authorities prior to announcing the new privacy policy. Further, CNIL suggests that Google exaggerated claims that “data protection authorities across the EU had been ‘extensively pre-briefed.’” As it were, it turns out Google only contacted a sample of the authorities and, even then, only did so mere hours before the announcement of the new privacy policy. Ultimately, CNIL declares that “Google’s new privacy policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection, especially regarding the information provided to data subjects.”

    But just because the EU put Google on the ropes didn’t mean that they were going to start pulling punches. The letter continues to scold Google the way a sagacious parent might discipline a crass, ill-tempered child.

    The fact that Google informs users about what it will not do with the data (such as sharing personal data with advertisers) is not sufficient to provide comprehensive information either.

    Rather than promoting transparency, the terms of the new policy and the fact that Google claims publicly that it will combine data across services raises fears about Google’s actual practices. Our preliminary investigation shows that it is extremely difficult to know exactly which data is combined between which services for which purposes even for trained privacy professionals.

    The CNIL and the EU data protection authorities are deeply concerned about the combination of personal data across services: they have strong doubts about the lawfulness and fairness of such processing, and about its compliance with European Data Protection legislation.

    CNIL concluded by saying that they will “fully address” this issue within the next few weeks, but by then who knows what further trouble will have arisen in the muck of Google’s new policy. In the meantime, CNIL has asked Google for a “pause” in implementing the new privacy policy.

    To that last note, Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, said, “We have notified over 350 million authenticated Google users and provided highly visible notifications on our home page and in search results for our non-authenticated users. To pause now would cause a great deal of confusion for users.”

    No, enacting a new and poorly understood privacy policy will cause confusion for users, Mr. Fleischer. It’s not like the launch of this new privacy policy is some runaway locomotive on a downhill plummet that can’t possibly be halted without causing the collateral deaths of every passenger onboard. It’s a user policy. You most definitely can delay its application. But instead, Google has opted to amorally go with the “Gimme it, it’s mine!” approach to user privacy, information in general, and its disdain for international laws.

  • ACTA Referred To European Court of Justice

    Is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty, otherwise known as ACTA, compatible with what is referred to as the EU’s “fundamental rights and freedoms?” Some EU officials are asking that very question, and to help determine the answer, EU trade chief Karel De Gucht indicated the highly-flammable — at least from a social sense — piece of legislation would be referred to the EU’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

    What happens if, after careful deliberation, the EU court decides that ACTA is not compatible with the rights De Gucht discussed? Does that delay, if not entirely kill the ratification process? While there have been a number of countries to sign the ACTA treaty — The United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, to name a few — would a ruling against it stop the treaty in its tracks? Considering the fact that ACTA has to be ratified by the European Union parliament, proceedings that are supposed to happen this summer, such a ruling could derail the oft-protested treaty.

    De Gucht’s discussed his motivations during a press conference, via Reuters:

    “This morning, my fellow commissioners have discussed and agreed in general with my proposal to refer the ACTA agreement to the European Court of Justice,” said EU trade chief Karel De Gucht, referring to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

    “We are planning to ask Europe’s highest court to assess ACTA’s compatibility with the EU’s fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression and information or that of protection,” he told a regular news briefing.

    While the Polish government initially tried to downplay the massive amount of protesting ACTA received, especially from their citizens, it’s clear the global backlash against ACTA has not fallen on deaf ears.

    While some countries have put their signatures on the treaty, a number of prominent members of the European Union — Germany, Poland, the Netherlands — have decided to delay their commitment, at least until the EU parliament weighs in. Now that the European Court of Justice is involved, their position may be revealed a little sooner.

    Hat-tip to Marcelo Bing for the lead image.

  • EU Court: Social Networks Not Responsible For User Content

    A European court has found that social networks can’t be held responsible for the content its users post – score one for the Internet.

    SABAM is a name you may not be familiar with but it’s essentially the RIAA of Belgium. The group represents authors, composers and publishers of musical works. They have a beef with Netlog, a social network similar to Facebook.

    The problem SABAM has with Netlog is the sharing aspect of social networks. They feel that users sharing audio-visual works with other users over Netlog violates their copyright over the works in question. They feel that any works posted to the social network should only be made with their consent and Netlog should pay them a fee.

    This all culminated in SABAM summoning Netlog before the President of the Court of First Instance of Brussels demanding that the social network “cease unlawfully making available musical or audio-visual works from SABAM’s repertoire and to pay a penalty of €1000 for each day of delay in complying with that order.”

    Netlog fired back saying that granting such an injunction would be “an obligation to monitor” which is in violation of the E-Commerce Directive.

    The Court of First Instance of Brussels sent the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. They asked “whether European Union law precludes a national court from issuing an injunction against a hosting service provider, such as an owner of an online social network, which requires it to install a system for filtering information stored on its servers by its service users, which applies indiscriminately to all of those users, as a preventative measure, exclusively at its expense and for an unlimited period.”

    The Court of Justice agreed that Netlog is a hosting service provider within the meaning of EU law because it stores information provided by users on its servers.

    The court, however, said that requiring the social network to install a filtering system would indeed the violate the E-Commerce Directive. This is because the filtering system “would require the owner to carry out general monitoring of the information stored on its servers.”

    The court says that they have to balance the rights of copyright holders and the rights of individuals who would be affected by monitoring.

    They found that requiring the installation of a filtering system would only be in the favor of copyright holders. It would also infringe on the rights of Netlog and its users. The filtering system would be “a serious infringement of Netlog’s freedom to conduct its business since it would require Netlog to install a complicated, costly, permanent computer system at its own expense.” The filtering system would also infringe on “fundamental rights” of its users by violating their right to protection of personal data and their freedom to send and receive information, both of which are protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    In essence, the court struck down the proposed filtering system because it would not create a fair balance between the right to intellectual property and the rights of human beings.

    SABAM requested a similar injunction on the Scarlet network in November of last year. The Court of Justice struck it down for the same reason. SABAM, in response, said that they will “propose alternative measures in order to protect the authors and their works.”

    It would seem that they haven’t proposed alternative measures just yet, but they should learn sooner or later that infringing on the rights of Internet users is not the way to “protect the authors and their works.”

    You can read the whole decision here.

    [Lead image courtesy of Cedric Puisney’s flickr]

  • Germany Delays Signing ACTA

    Germany Delays Signing ACTA

    Have all the anti-ACTA protests started to sway European politicians? Maybe this weekend’s plans for mass protest is what did it, but there does appear to be some headway being made against the overreaching attempts at Internet regulation that have permeated throughout the collective social conscious.

    According to various reports, Germany will not be signing the controversial treaty, at least not anytime soon. Perhaps the Germany is waiting for the EU parliament to issue its vote of consent, but that won’t happen until later this year, sometime in the summer.

    According to a Google translation of an article appearing in Spiegel.de, German government officials offered the following response for their ACTA delay:

    The minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger (FDP), has now made ​​it clear that in Germany first before a decision is to decide the EU Parliament. “It is good that the public debate about ACTA, both on and offline so committed is done,” the justice minister said on Thursday. “The EU must now decide whether it needs ACTA and wants,” said Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger. “This must be approved by the European Parliament only once. All controversial issues are being discussed at European level and must now be answered.”

    While the translation is responsible for the broken English-like response, it appears as if Germany’s government officials won’t act until the controversy surrounding the bill is addressed. Conversely, it also seems as if the German government is waiting on the EU parliament to weigh in before their vote is offered.

    While that may indeed be the case, the fact German officials are acknowledging the controversy surrounding ACTA and other Internet regulatory treaties and laws, which indicates the protests are indeed being noticed. With that in mind, if the following Hatebreed masterpiece isn’t the theme song of the anti-ACTA movement, something needs to change:


    Keep fighting the good fight, you Guy Fawkes-masked groups.

  • Anti-ACTA Protests Going Worldwide Tomorrow

    While there’s no way of knowing if the upcoming anti-ACTA protests will have the same chilling effect the Internet blackout did on SOPA/PIPA, citizens on a worldwide basis are preparing to speak out against the ACTA treaty.

    Loudly.

    Tomorrow (February 11), is being set aside as a day of global protest against ACTA and perhaps the newest enemy of the Internet, TPP. While these protests are largely focused in Europe, this is not just a problem facing citizens of the European Union. Keep in mind, U.S. citizens, that President Obama has shown outward support for ACTA, even as his cabinet derided SOPA/PIPA.

    Much like the massive anti-SOPA movement, the web, especially social media, is helping facilitate these protests. Over at KillACTA.org, the folks who run FightForTheFuture.org have set up something of a protest meet up utility, complete with a Google Map showing where various protests are occurring.

    There’s also a “Write Your Official” widget, which spells out the anti-ACTA manifesto quite clearly:

    I urge you to vote no on ACTA and to communicate its severe problems to your colleagues. ACTA’s vague language locks us into obsolete copyright and patent laws, preventing democracies from updating their laws to unlock new economic and social opportunities.

    It criminalizes harmless remixes by ordinary users if they achieve “a commercial scale” (art 2.14.1) which many amateur videos do on sites like Youtube. And it criminalizes legitimate websites by making them responsible for user behavior (“aiding and abetting” art 2.14.4).

    Worse, it permanently bypasses the democratic process by empowering the “ACTA Committee” to “propose amendments to [ACTA]” without your approval. (art 6.4) In other words, it’s impossible to know what you’re voting for.

    The global movement against the US law SOPA showed that internet freedom is a crucial issue which belongs in the legislative process of each country. You should view ACTA as an attempt by a handful of companies to circumvent the democratic process, and you should vote against it.

    Thank you. Please reply if you have any questions.

    KillACTA.org also features embeddable widgets for sites that want to join the protest on Saturday. As indicated, the embeddable map shows where the fun will be had, especially if you’re against ACTA:


    As you can see, while there is representation in the United States, it pales in comparison to our European friends. Perhaps the success of the anti-SOPA movement ended the American public’s interest, but as our European counterparts demonstrate, the fight for a properly regulated Internet is still going. It should also be noted that despite being “on the ropes,” SOPA and PIPA are not dead.

    Facebook is also playing a major role in relation to organizing these anti-ACTA protests. Over at the STOP ACTA! page, there is a list of events going on all over Europe, and it’s clear our European Union neighbors, at least the citizens thereof, are not going to simply accept ACTA without a fighting back.

    In Germany and France, for instance, there will be protests in multiple cities:

    FRENCH:
    Aix en Provence : https://www.facebook.com/events/244421288966558/
    Ajaccio : https://www.facebook.com/events/133197000134763/
    Albi : https://www.facebook.com/events/168765856565763/
    Amiens : https://www.facebook.com/events/100287056765109/
    Angers : https://www.facebook.com/events/199634866800799/
    Annecy : http://www.facebook.com/events/257782500958741/
    Avignon : http://www.facebook.com/events/205603019536597/
    Bayonne : https://www.facebook.com/events/170881226348001/
    Besançon : http://www.facebook.com/events/350055058338859/
    Bordeaux : http://www.facebook.com/events/362717853754753/
    Brest : https://www.facebook.com/events/115942121861376/
    Caen : https://www.facebook.com/events/228618757227112/
    Chambery : https://www.facebook.com/events/288493647877788/
    Clermont-Ferrand : http://www.facebook.com/events/326849087360202/
    Corte : https://www.facebook.com/events/185750778193305/
    Dijon : https://www.facebook.com/events/274825002587428/
    Douai : https://www.facebook.com/events/102456923212099/
    Dunkerque : https://www.facebook.com/events/120665031389535/
    Grenoble : https://www.facebook.com/events/291033160951733/
    Limoges : http://www.facebook.com/events/321440564560770/
    Lille : http://www.facebook.com/events/199934440105717/
    Lorient : http://www.facebook.com/events/231912796892759/
    Lyon : https://www.facebook.com/events/227033324049150/
    Marseille : https://www.facebook.com/events/371810592833698/
    Metz : https://www.facebook.com/events/223962574358248/
    Montpellier : https://www.facebook.com/events/308322049214315/
    Nancy : https://www.facebook.com/events/297319746990736/
    Nantes : https://www.facebook.com/events/336368539718367/
    Nevers : http://www.facebook.com/events/257478177653829/
    Nice : http://www.facebook.com/events/226142050807952/
    Nîmes : https://www.facebook.com/events/284365168292336/
    Orléans : https://www.facebook.com/events/144336802350023/
    Paris : https://www.facebook.com/events/261953107207192/
    Perpignan : https://www.facebook.com/events/335195069845376/
    Poitiers : https://www.facebook.com/events/335663953135037/
    Porto-Vecchio : https://www.facebook.com/events/270343909700151/
    Quimper : http://www.facebook.com/events/175748819198384/
    Reims : https://www.facebook.com/events/261712197231360/
    Rennes : https://www.facebook.com/events/284421551613274/
    Saint Brieuc : https://www.facebook.com/events/355899707762027/
    Saint Denis (Ile de la Réunion) : http://www.facebook.com/events/355272381151834/
    Strasbourg : https://www.facebook.com/events/317988148239037/
    Tarbes : https://www.facebook.com/events/336009553098334/
    Toulouse : https://www.facebook.com/events/312007895501972/
    Tours : http://www.facebook.com/events/282746828454027/
    Troyes : http://www.facebook.com/events/322202587818097/

    GERMANY:
    Berlin: https://www.facebook.com/events/338799346153966/
    Bremerhaven: https://www.facebook.com/events/212489055513027/
    Dortmund: https://www.facebook.com/events/292927114099000/
    Dresden: http://www.facebook.com/events/155805177868102/
    Dusseldorf: http://www.facebook.com/events/228942327190942/
    Erfurt – http://www.facebook.com/events/204041156361455/
    Frankfurt/Main: https://www.facebook.com/events/129547730499332/
    Freiburg: https://www.facebook.com/events/313894588647456/
    Hamburg: http://www.facebook.com/events/159557767491881/
    Hanover: https://www.facebook.com/events/360437973983925/
    Köln: https://www.facebook.com/events/207644835998103/
    Leipzig: https://www.facebook.com/events/316277768408479/
    Mainz: http://www.facebook.com/events/169154469860540/
    Mannheim: http://www.facebook.com/events/267555573314186/
    Minden: https://www.facebook.com/events/310027772381359/
    Munich: https://www.facebook.com/events/117215651734097/
    Nordenham: http://www.facebook.com/events/182942588474388/
    Nürnberg: https://www.facebook.com/events/244916202249229/
    Potsdam: https://www.facebook.com/events/350079258349898/
    Regensburg: http://www.akv-r.de/2012/01/30/demoaufruf-acta-ad-acta/
    Saarbruecken: https://www.facebook.com/events/337811569584831/
    Stuttgart: https://www.facebook.com/events/144489442335635/
    Überall : http://www.facebook.com/events/182716005161256/

    The question is, will this anti-ACTA outcry fall on deaf ears? Considering the Polish government have already tried to pacify their citizens with more “ACTA isn’t as bad as you think” dismissives. Of course, if people took the apathetic approach and ignore their right to speak out, there’s no telling what state the Internet would be in. At least these protests bring light to the issue at hand.

  • Copyright Reform or ACTA?

    Copyright Reform or ACTA?

    Which method is best for combating piracy and other forms of Internet related intellectual property infringement? If you were to listen the average European Union citizen, the reaction towards ACTA has been understandably negative. However, various governments of the European Union have been just as adamant in their support.

    While the case of Kader Arif stands out — Arif resigned his position in order to offer his protestations against ACTA — but, by and large, most European Union members, or, at least the governments were on board with the controversial legislation. Now, however, there appears to be some push back. First, we have news of Poland suspending the bill until further discussions concerning ACTA takes place.

    The anti-ACTA sentiment that spilled out of Poland deserves credit here, undoubtedly. Now we have word of a prominent European Parliament member speaking out not just against ACTA, but the copyright industry as a whole. Using TorrentFreak as a platform, Marietje Schaake, who is a member of the European Parliament, recently discussed the issue of copyright in relation to ACTA, and from Schaake’s point of view, the issue of piracy would be much better addressed with copyright reform, as opposed to sweeping laws/treaties like ACTA and SOPA.

    In her own words. Any emphasis added is ours:

    Regrettably, concerns by businesses, NGO’s and politicians have not led to a better result. This is partly due to the intransparant way in which ACTA has been established and negotiated. As a democratically elected representative, I believe it is not the role of government to protect outdated business models, and I do believe it is our job to ensure democratic oversight.

    Schaake continues:

    Yet there is a big push towards enforcing outdated legal structures of copyright by the entertainment industry. ACTA will lock any signatory country into a system of copyright enforcement, leaving the democratic process disadvantaged to enact necessary reform of our laws to suit the digital age… Copyright and E-Commerce need to suit the needs of the advanced information society we now live in. To enable a flourishing Digital Single Market in Europe, we need to analyse case-law of the last 12 years regarding the internet, hear from creators, innovators and consumers. If we want to serve consumers, artists and businesses well, we need to find a new balance in copyright. Every aspect of copyright needs to be discussed: the exclusive rights, limitations and exceptions, collective management, enforcement, etc. Only then should we discuss how to enforce the new found balance on the international arena, such as with ACTA.

    As an aside, if Schaake ever decided to run for office in the United States, she’d be a fantastic alternative to the Lamar Smiths of the world. She addresses copyright with an intelligent approach, as opposed to the “we must protect our money for as long as time lasts” approach of the RIAA, MPAA, et al, an approach that, thanks to incessant lobbying, is prevalent in the houses of government in the United States.

    Because it’s unlikely Schaake would “play ball” with these copyright-protecting entities, her electable in the United States is in doubt. Furthermore, considering the backlash from institutions like the MPAA concerning the anti-SOPA movement that swept the Internet a few weeks ago, the “reform copyright” fight is a long, long way from happening. At least in the United States.

    H/t to Reddit for the lead image.

  • Samsung Target Of European Antitrust Investigation

    The European Commission has announced it is launching a formal investigation into Samsung for anti-competitive business practices in Europe. The statement alleges that Samsung may have used its patent rights in a way that violated the European Union’s antitrust rules.

    The investigation seems to stem from Samsung’s ongoing legal battle with Apple over patent infringement. Though Apple is never mentioned by name – and is apparently not a target of the investigation – the statement notes that in 2011 Samsung “sought injunctive relief… against competing mobile device manufacturers” on the grounds of patent infringement. The focus of the Commission’s investigation will be whether Samsung’s suits violated the company’s 1998 agreement with the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to license essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

    Samsung filed suit against Apple for infringement of several mobile device patents last year. In response to a suit filed in the U.S. by Apple to block sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, Samsung initiated legal action in several countries. At the time Samsung’s suits were seen by many as retaliatory. It looks like the European Commission may agree. It is unclear what implications this will have, if any, on the law suits still working their way through several European courts.