Listan November 2013

listan@lists.dfri.se

19 participants
33 discussions

2013/14:KU6 - Regelverket för minoritetsbordläggning är tillämplig
by Erik Josefsson 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

Regelverket för minoritetsbordläggning är tillämplig. En annan tolkning är orimlig. Undantaget för minoritetsbordläggning gäller **inte** förslag till lag som **enbart rör förbud** att röja sådant vars hemlighållande är nödvändigt med hänsyn till något av de intressen som anges i 2 kap. 2 § tryckfrihetsförordningen. Rätten att ta del av allmänna handlingar får begränsas **endast om begränsningen **korrekt balanserar** allmänhetens intresse i offentlighetsprincipen mot intresset att rikets förhållande till annan stat eller mellanfolklig organisation inte skadas. 2013/14:KU6 rör inte *enbart* förbud utan avser reglera betydligt bredare balanserade avvägningar. Se Ante Wessels (FFII) ärende mot Europaparlamentet: http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1956 //Erik

1 0

DLD, Säpo och Maintrac
by Dennis Ljungmark 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Fick just se denna: https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=5707919 som i kombination med : http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressreleases/utsikt-bredband-tecknar-avtal-me… Blir lite negativ. //D.S.

2 1

Fwd: [US-EU-TTIP] EU and US negotiators determined to transfer sovereignty to companies
by Erik Josefsson 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Här har Ante mer vatten på temat "Riksdagens avskaffande" (se nedan) Vi vet att det tog 8 månader att få ut ett (1/one/ein/uno/yksi) ACTA-dokument. Är det mödan värt att försöka få titta på TTIP? Vad gäller DFRIs intresseområde, här en grov uppskattning av vad USA vill ha in: http://infojustice.org/archives/31243 (skrolla ner till Draconian Enforcement in the Digital Environment). //Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [US-EU-TTIP] EU and US negotiators determined to transfer sovereignty to companies Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:15:56 +0100 Negotiators determined to transfer sovereignty to companies http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1963 November 17, 2013 By Ante During a stakeholders meeting on the TTIP / TAFTA trade agreement, EU and US negotiators showed determination to transfer sovereignty to companies. On Friday 15 November, the last day of the second TTIP negotiating round, the EU commission organised a stakeholders meeting. Chief negotiators Dan Mullaney (US) and Ignacio Garcia Bercero (EU) gave a short talk and answered questions. In the stakeholders meeting many topics were discussed, from investor – state dispute settlement, the right to water, the precautionary principle, to consumer safeguards. Here is a (low quality) audio recording, it starts half a minute into the meeting. Sovereignty There were many questions about investor – state dispute settlement (ISDS). Under ISDS companies can sue states if new laws threaten to make expected profits lower. The cases are handled outside national court systems, by tribunals consisting of three investment lawyers. Civil society groups see ISDS as a threat to democracy. ISDS transfers sovereignty in two ways. It gives companies equal standing to states. And it gives investment lawyers the power to decide in conflicts between companies and states. Why on earth would one want to transfer sovereignty to companies and investment lawyers? According to Mr. Garcia Bercero a well designed ISDS system can preserve the right to regulate: "I first want to say, very clear, very firmly, that we certainly do not believe that a well designed investor to state dispute settlement system could compromise the right to regulate. One of the fundamental issues we want to look at very carefully if we decide on any potential investment protection rules in a treaty, as we indeed did in the agreement with Canada, is to make sure that parties have the right to make policies in the public interest." (at 48.20) Mr. Garcia Bercero turns the question around. He takes transferring sovereignty for granted, and then wants to safeguard space for states to regulate. States become the begging parties. That is the world upside down. Furthermore, the commission’s reassurances do not convince. Mr. Garcia Bercero states the commission got it right in the ISDS chapter in the agreement with Canada. However, already months ago Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder showed serious flaws in the (leaked) draft. Moreover, arguments in favour of ISDS on the commission’s Q&A webpage were scrutinized by Corporate Europe Observatory, after which the commission withdrew the statements. A second commission attempt was strongly critisised by Glyn Moody. The commission’s beliefs are firm, but it comes empty handed. Mr. Mullaney talked about a fair, quick and transparent ISDS system that safeguards regulatory space. Nothing would prevent non-discriminatory legitimate policy objectives. He too takes transferring sovereignty for granted, and then wants to safeguard limited space for states to regulate. The policy objectives have to be non-discriminatory and legitimate. What is non-discriminatory and legitimate? The investment lawyers will decide on that. Then someone asked the essential question: why is ISDS needed at all? Both negotiators mentioned protection against discrimination. Mr. Mullaney: "I think it is fair to say that measures in the United States that specifically discriminate against EU [parts?] or EU companies and measures in Europe that discriminate against US property or companies, that would in fact be something you want to avoid in the agreement." (at 1.41.26) The answer doesn’t clarify why ISDS would be needed, as both the EU and US have good courts, and state – state dispute settlement can solve remaining issues. In related news, last week Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz wrote an opinion on ISDS. He makes it clear that the instrument is unnecessary: "There is no reason that foreign-owned property should be better protected than property owned by a country’s own citizens. Moreover, if constitutional guarantees are not enough to convince investors (…) foreigners can always avail themselves of expropriation insurance provided by the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (a division of the World Bank) or numerous national organizations providing such insurance." He also explains what is really behind ISDS: "But those supporting the investment agreements are not really concerned about protecting property rights, anyway. The real goal is to restrict governments’ ability to regulate and tax corporations – that is, to restrict their ability to impose responsibilities, not just uphold rights. Corporations are attempting to achieve by stealth – through secretly negotiated trade agreements – what they could not attain in an open political process." A union without clothes In my opinion, the EU is in dire straights. The EU gave us a euro with design flaws, it may soon transfer sovereignty to companies and investment lawyers. The political elite fails. It is time for a wake up call.

2 1

Påminnelse: På torsdag är det kryptoparty!
by Linus Nordberg 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Hej listan! Tre torsdagskvällar i rad, i Stockholm: https://www.dfri.se/cryptoparty-konsthallc/ Lär ju bli bra! -- DFRI-listan är öppen för alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri

1 0

mail till 365 ledamöter: "Riksdagens avskaffande 2013/14:KU6 sekretess i det internationella samarbetet"
by Erik Josefsson 16 Nov '13

16 Nov '13

Här är ett utkast till ett mail till alla riksdagsledamöter: https://dfri.etherpad.mozilla.org/ttip-mass-mail-20131116 //Erik *Utkast massmail till alla riksdagsledamöter* *To: *(n-1)(a)riksdagen.se *Subject: *Riksdagens avskaffande 2013/14:KU6 sekretess i det internationella samarbetet Hej ledamot! På Marina och Pontus namnsdag 20 november kommer du att rösta om du kommer att få insyn i TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. TTIP är ett handelsavtal mellan EU och USA som antagligen kommer att innehålla mer än 20 kapitel och ett av dem kommer att täcka betydligt mer änACTA(se http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/index_…). Tror du att du kommer att få titta på TTIP om lagen ändras enligt betänkande 2013/14:KU6? Vi tror inte att du kommer att få titta på TTIP om lagförslaget går igenom. Riksdagens utskott kommer inte att få tillgång till de handlingar som kommer att utgöra grunden för de lagändringar som TTIP kommer att leda till vad gäller t ex miljölagstiftning, upphandling, kryptering på internet och grundläggande medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter. /Kommer du ihåg att medlemmarna i riksdagens näringsutskott sa att ACTA inte hade med internet att göra?/ *"Förhandlingarna innehåller heller inget alls som gäller Internet."* http://www.newsmill.se/artikel/2009/04/03/vi-jobbar-hart-oppenhet-om-acta-f… Problemen med lagförslaget är dock betydligt mer omfattande än insynen i förhandlingarna om ett handelsavtal. De gäller i grunden synen på vem som fattar besluten om svensk öppenhet. Med den nya lagen flyttas de i praktiken från den svenska riksdagen till olika avtalsförhandlingar. Vi vill att du ska *rösta emot *betänkande*2013/14:KU6*Sekretess i det internationella samarbetet. Vi vill inte att du röstar för riksdagens avskaffande 20 november. mvh NN (organisation eller person|er)

1 0

Fwd: [US-EU-TTIP] NGOs call for transparency in EU-US trade talks (ChemicalWatch)
by Erik Josefsson 16 Nov '13

16 Nov '13

Lite spamvarning på mig nu... hoppas det är okej... (annars maila off list och säg till!) //Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [US-EU-TTIP] NGOs call for transparency in EU-US trade talks (ChemicalWatch) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:21:45 +0000 http://chemicalwatch.com/17217/ngos-call-for-transparency-in-eu-us-trade-ta… NGOs call for transparency in EU-US trade talks Deal could weaken REACH in long term 13 November 2013 / Europe,North America NGOs and industry must be allowed to play a greater role in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), argued civil society organisations in Brussels on Monday, underlining that chemicals legislation will be one of the main issues in the talks. There could be "consumer benefits" from the EU-US trade negotiations, which are taking place in Brussels this week (CW 5 November 2013 <http://chemicalwatch.com/17112/eu-and-us-to-pick-up-trade-talks-mid-novembe…>), said Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), during an NGO press briefing on Tuesday. More competitive markets could lead to "lower prices, more consumer choice and less red tape," she said. But equally they could "water down existing consumer legislation" in the EU and in US states such as California that have stricter legislation than that agreed at a national level. To ensure this does not happen, the negotiations have to become more transparent, said Ms Goyens, pointing out that there is no stakeholder engagement between the Commission and industry, civil society or even other EU institutions such as the Council or the European Parliament on the talks. According to her, the Commission has cited "tradition" as the reason for keeping the negotiating texts secret. "We are in the twenty-first century," she countered, pointing out that technology allows documents to be shared easily and that institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) publish negotiating texts. Greater openness in the EU was all the more important given that 600 industry advisors have been given access to the negotiating texts in the US, said Ms Goyens. Civil society groups hope to learn by the end of the week whether and how the Commission will allow them to have more engagement in the negotiations."Well before the negotiating rounds we need to be told what is on the agenda and have a briefing session where negotiators listen to us [industry and civil society] and hear what we believe will be the consequences of certain actions," said Ms Goyens. "In a legal text, every comma matters, and it is important that one word is not used instead of another." After each round, there should be a feedback session, she added. "One of the main issues [of the talks] is REACH," said Ms Goyens. "TSCA and REACH are not compatible" (CW 12 November 2013 <http://chemicalwatch.com/17191/ngo-warns-of-us-risk-to-eu-chemical-safeguar…>). Baskut Tuncak, attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel), told /Chemical Watch/ that he was particularly concerned about EU calls for a Regulatory Cooperation Council as part of the TTIP. According to a speech made by EU trade commissioner Karel de Gucht last month, this would "bring together the heads of the most important EU and US regulatory agencies". They would "monitor the implementation of commitments made and consider new priorities for regulatory cooperation" and "ask regulators or standards bodies to develop regulations jointly that could then have a good chance of becoming international standards." Mr Tuncak asked what this could mean for future revisions of REACH, given the current lack of compatibility between the EU Regulation and US proposals to reform TSCA, and environmental concerns in general. "Given the challenge of the Commission agreeing on proposals within its own confines, adding US agencies to the mix is a recipe for chilling the process," he said. Further, the final deal is particularly significant because it is likely to be seen as a blueprint for other trade deals. "Any restraint on the EU's progress on chemicals-related issues through TTIP would be of concern for developing countries given the forecasts by the OECD and the UN Environment Programme (Unep) of disproportionate growth rates for chemical production and use in these countries," said Mr Tuncak. The possible impact of any trade deal on "established rights and standards" in the EU such as the precautionary and the polluter pays principles was highlighted by Magda Stoczkiewicz, director of Friends of the Earth in Europe, during the briefing. She also drew attention to concerns about the inclusion of an investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) in the trade deal. "This is a huge issue for chemicals," said Mr Tuncak. There are a number of cases related to environmental protection under way in the US where corporations are alleging breach of the investor provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," he said. This could be a precedent for what could happen if such a mechanism were included in the TTIP, for example, with chemical companies fighting stricter US state legislation compared to national provisions. -- Baskut Tuncak Staff Attorney, CIEL (Center for International Environmental Law) 1350 Connecticut Ave. Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20036 USA

1 0

DFRI på 30C3
by Linus Nordberg 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Hej listan! 30C3 är den 30:e Chaos Communication Congress. Anordnas mellan jul och nyår, numera i Hamburg. Folk från DFRI brukar åka dit, förra året höll vi ett möte där. EFF och NoisySquare delar en "assembly" på CCC i år och EDRi kommer också att representeras på ett eller annat sätt. Skall DFRI göra något? Lägga ut några klistermärken kan ju vara lämpligt, men är det någon som vill göra något mer? Hålla någon slags föredrag, presentera vår verksamhet, annat? -- DFRI-listan är öppen för alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri

2 1

Fwd: [US-EU-TTIP] Why Trade Deals are Privatising Government
by Erik Josefsson 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Är det nån som vet hur man får till en minoritetsbordläggning av betänkande 2013/14:KU6 Sekretess i det internationella samarbetet? Känns som det är läge att dra i nödbromsen. //Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [US-EU-TTIP] Why Trade Deals are Privatising Government Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:22:55 +0100 *_Why Trade Deals are Privatising Government _* http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-bergan/why-trade-deals-are-priva_b_423… Today, the EU and US will start the second round of negotiations on what could be the biggest trade deal ever seen. They present us with a stark choice: do we want the rules that govern our society to be decided by government, or by big business? Key to this is a thing called an 'investor-state dispute mechanism' (ISDS), which allows companies to sue states if they feel their investment has been negatively affected by government policy decisions. This is what Philip Morris is using to sue Uruguay and Australia for their policy of plain packaging on cigarettes. Philip Morris argue the policies are an infringement of their 'intellectual property' rights - i.e. they are not able to use their logo on the packets. It is what Vodafone is using to sue India for changes to its tax policy and what Churchill Mining are using to sue Indonesia for taking them off a mining contract following a campaign to save an area of rainforest because it is home to some of the world's last remaining Orang-utans. The cases will be heard behind closed doors, by three commercial lawyers and may directly challenge government policy making. Current investment treaties are so vaguely worded that the decisions rely heavily on the opinion of these lawyers - there is often little continuity between decisions, making it difficult for countries to predict the outcome of cases. What's interesting is that the argument has always been that ISDS is needed because poor old investors need protecting from weak or unreliable legal systems when they benevolently seek to invest their hard-earned cash overseas. Yet there are moves to include ISDS in the EU-US deal, where it is difficult to imagine that the legal systems are not sufficiently robust. The above might be enough to make you think this kind of mechanism should be avoided at all costs. However it's also important to recognise that it would have a direct impact on our daily lives. For example, right now it matters what we think about NHS privatisation. If the current commissioning set-up (as of 2012 Commissioners have to open services up to full competition) turned out not to work, in theory, we could lobby our MPs to change it. Under ISDS, that would cease to be possible. The huge and powerful US health industry could throw its significant resources behind a case and argue that changes to our policy of opening up the NHS to private companies had hurt their investment. This could see the government shelling out millions, if not billions of dollars. The threat of this kind of payout is on its own enough to make governments think twice about policy change. The same applies to a whole raft of issues: who we want to control internet access, whether or not we want to have Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our diet, what kind of banking system we want. Given its 'special relationship' with the US, the UK will play a key role in these negotiations but also stands to be most impacted. Yet politicians are certainly not bringing the debate to the public. With such far-reaching implications, it is time that that people in both the EU and the US were properly involved in deciding whether they want this deal and what should be included.

1 0

What Is to Be Done?
by Erik Josefsson 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

Att hålla EDRI's EP-lista uppdaterad är ett enkelt första steg att få överblick: http://parltrack.euwiki.org/notification/edri Sen kan man åka på Europarl Hackathon 24-26 Januari om man vill: http://europarl.me/ "We need to work together to make data speak clearly - we need to work together to make politics and Europe more interesting to the voters. We need to tell the politicians we are watching, and they need to run on what they've done, and anchor their election promises on their actions." mvh //Erik

2 2

bug=569668 (annars ingen kryptering...)
by Erik Josefsson 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

Halloj igen! Det här skulle jag VERKLIGEN behöva hjälp med: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=569668 Nåt som nån på listan kan hjälpa till med? EP har uppgraderat till MS-sjuttiotusen. Ingen IMAP i sikte (det är inte ens lönt att fråga, tro mig). Alltså måste man köra "Personal Davmail". Typ. Annars ingen kryptering... //Erik

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Listan November 2013