http://www.euractiv.com/pa/edward-snowden-deserves-sakharov-analysis-530027
Edward Snowden deserves the Sakharov Prize
A deserving recipient of the 2013 Sakharov prize would be the American
whistleblower Edward Snowden, writes Stefan Svallfors. By exposing the
US Prism spying program, Snowden made it possible for us to say 'No --
this is not a development and a society we want', he argues.
/Stefan Svallfors is Professor of Sociology at Umeå University (Sweden)
and the Institute for Future Studies (Denmark). This op-ed was
originally published in Swedish in Sydsvenska dagbladet on 29 August 2013. /
Since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize.
According to its statutes, this is given to a person or group "who made
remarkable efforts to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms" and
thus "worked against intolerance, fanaticism and oppression."
The award is given in memory of the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov
(1921-1989), known as one of the men behind the hydrogen bomb but even
more as a Soviet dissident with his Human Rights Committee and his
defence of political prisoners. Sakharov stands as a symbol of the
individual human being who dares to stand up against tyranny and
oppression, even when the personal cost is very high.
A most deserving recipient of the 2013 price would be the American
whistle blower Edward Snowden. In May, The Guardian published his
disclosure of the extensive, illegal and deeply intrusive monitoring
conducted by the American National Security Agency. For this heroic
effort Snowden has paid a heavy personal price. He is hunted as an
outlaw by the U.S. government, accused of crimes that will put him in
jail for the rest of his life. The U.S. government has threatened the
governments that dare to offer him asylum with serious consequences. In
a painful irony, the only sanctuary that had been found for Snowden is
Russia, a country whose democratic problems and authoritarian tendencies
are obvious.
But is really Snowden a worthy recipient of the prize, someone may
sneeze. Is not America the world's leading democracy, a friend of
Europe, committed to the rule of law? Yes. But even democracies can hide
pockets of tyranny in their hearts: a democratic state may well coexist
with other systems that are characterised by anything but democracy and
law. As the monitoring system which now puts its global tentacles far
into the private lives of citizens. By exposing this system Snowden made
it possible for us to say No -- this is not a development and a society
we want, we protect our civil rights and freedoms when they are threatened.
Snowden's revelations make explicit demands on citizens and politicians
to act and react. How have we responded to these demands? Not in any
impressive way one must say. Individual politicians and many citizens
have reacted, expressed support for Snowden, trying to act in his
defence. They see the unpleasant consequences of a surveillance system
where innocent citizens get their electronic communication and their
phone calls tapped and mapped. The German President Joachim Gauck, with
his personal East German experience, for example stated that Snowden
"deserves respect" for his actions. But otherwise an awkward silence,
evasive answers, gentle tiptoeing. Merkel hums, The European Commission
whispers, the parliaments remain silent.
On the Swedish side, even more depressing inaction is observed. Sweden
acts together with Britain to make sure the question should not be
addressed at European level. This is a bilateral issue and by the way,
no Swedish interests are at stake, the Foreign Minister distractedly
announces before returning to Twitter. The government obviously sees no
reason to allow this issue to eclipse the splendor of Obama's
forthcoming state visit. From the political left, a complete disinterest
is shown. No social democratic position is advanced or even formulated.
It is tragic to see how thin the liberal veneer is in many places. When
liberalism is no longer easy and obvious, when it requires courage and
sacrifice, when we are forced to choose and our choices have real costs,
what happens then? We fall into line, we bend to power. Without
grumbling we let fairly manageable threats from terrorists sweep away
fundamental rights and freedoms.
We must demand more of ourselves and our elected officials than that. We
could start by giving Edward Snowden the prize whose name symbolises a
man who refused to bow to oppression and thereby actually changed history.
Sara,
Utmärkt idé att nominera Snowden till Sacharovpriset. Tar du reda på hur
vi gör?
/Christian
On 2013-08-29 14:25, Erik Lönroth wrote:
> Kanske något för er?
>
> Sista datum är den 12:e september.
>
> /Erik Lönroth
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Erik Josefsson* <erik.hjalmar.josefsson(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:erik.hjalmar.josefsson@gmail.com>>
> Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:35 AM
> Subject: [DFRI-listan] Stefan Svallfors: "Låt Snowden få Sacharovpriset"
> To: "listan(a)lists.dfri.se <mailto:listan@lists.dfri.se>"
> <listan(a)lists.dfri.se <mailto:listan@lists.dfri.se>>
>
>
> Sydsvenskan publicerar idag 29 augusti en artikel av Professor Stefan
> Svallfors:
>
> *"Låt Snowden få Sacharovpriset"*
> http://www.sydsvenskan.se/opinion/aktuella-fragor/lat-snowden-fa-sacharovpr…
>
> Nedan en engelsk version.
>
> //Erik
>
> *A Sakharov for our time?
> *
> Since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize. According to its statutes, this is given to a person or group "who made remarkable efforts to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms" and thus "worked against intolerance, fanaticism and oppression."
>
> The award is given in memory of the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989), known as one of the men behind the hydrogen bomb but even more as a Soviet dissident with his Human Rights Committee and his defense of political prisoners. Sakharov stands as a symbol of the individual human being who dares to stand up against tyranny and oppression, even when the personal cost is very high.
>
> A most deserving recipient of the 2013 price would be the American whistle blower Edward Snowden. In May, The Guardian published his disclosure of the extensive, illegal and deeply intrusive monitoring conducted by the American National Security Agency. For this heroic effort Snowden has paid a heavy personal price. He is hunted as an outlaw by the U.S. government, accused of crimes that will put him in jail for the rest of his life. The U.S. government has threatened the governments that dare to offer him asylum with serious consequences. In a painful irony, the only sanctuary that had been found for Snowden is Russia, a country whose democratic problems and authoritarian tendencies are obvious.
>
> But is really Snowden a worthy recipient of the prize, someone may sneeze. Is not America the world's leading democracy, a friend of Europe, committed to the rule of law? Yes. But even democracies can hide pockets of tyranny in their hearts, a democratic state may well coexist with other systems that are characterized by anything but democracy and law. As the monitoring system which now puts its global tentacles far into the private lives of citizens. By exposing this system Snowden made it possible for us to say No – this is not a development and a society we want, we protect our civil rights and freedoms when they are threatened.
>
> Snowden's revelations make explicit demands on citizens and politicians to act and react. How have we responded to these demands? Not in any impressive way one must say. Individual politicians and many citizens have reacted, expressed support for Snowden, trying to act in his defense. They see the unpleasant consequences of a surveillance system where innocent citizens get their electronic communication and their phone calls tapped and mapped. The German President Joachim Gauck, with his personal East German experience, for example stated that Snowden "deserves respect" for his actions. But otherwise an awkward silence, evasive answers, gentle tiptoeing. Merkel hums, The European Commission whispers, the parliaments remain silent.
>
> On the Swedish side, even more depressing inaction is observed. Sweden acts together with Britain to make sure the question should not be addressed at European level. This is a bilateral issue and by the way, no Swedish interests are at stake, the Foreign Minister distractedly announces before returning to Twitter. The government obviously sees no reason to allow this issue to eclipse the splendor of Obama's forthcoming state visit. From the political left, a complete disinterest is shown. No social democratic position is advanced or even formulated.
>
> It is tragic to see how thin the liberal veneer is in many places. When liberalism is no longer easy and obvious, when it requires courage and sacrifice, when we are forced to choose and our choices have real costs, what happens then? We fall into line, we bend to power. Without grumbling we let fairly manageable threats from terrorists sweep away fundamental rights and freedoms.
>
> We must demand more of ourselves and our elected officials than that. We could start by giving Edward Snowden the price whose name symbolizes a man who refused to bow to oppression and thereby actually changed history.
>
>
>
> Stefan Svallfors
> Professor of Sociology at Umeå University
> & the Institute for Future Studies
>
--
Christian Engström
Member of the European Parliament
Piratpartiet - The Pirate Party
+46-70-663 37 80
http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/
christian.engstrom(a)piratpartiet.se
<mailto:christian.engstrom@piratpartiet.se>
Pictures:
http://picasaweb.google.com/christian.engstrom.pirat/ChristianEngstrom#
Sydsvenskan publicerar idag 29 augusti en artikel av Professor Stefan
Svallfors:
*"Låt Snowden få Sacharovpriset"*
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/opinion/aktuella-fragor/lat-snowden-fa-sacharovpr…
Nedan en engelsk version.
//Erik
*A Sakharov for our time?
*
Since 1988, the European Parliament has awarded the Sakharov Prize. According to its statutes, this is given to a person or group "who made remarkable efforts to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms" and thus "worked against intolerance, fanaticism and oppression."
The award is given in memory of the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989), known as one of the men behind the hydrogen bomb but even more as a Soviet dissident with his Human Rights Committee and his defense of political prisoners. Sakharov stands as a symbol of the individual human being who dares to stand up against tyranny and oppression, even when the personal cost is very high.
A most deserving recipient of the 2013 price would be the American whistle blower Edward Snowden. In May, The Guardian published his disclosure of the extensive, illegal and deeply intrusive monitoring conducted by the American National Security Agency. For this heroic effort Snowden has paid a heavy personal price. He is hunted as an outlaw by the U.S. government, accused of crimes that will put him in jail for the rest of his life. The U.S. government has threatened the governments that dare to offer him asylum with serious consequences. In a painful irony, the only sanctuary that had been found for Snowden is Russia, a country whose democratic problems and authoritarian tendencies are obvious.
But is really Snowden a worthy recipient of the prize, someone may sneeze. Is not America the world's leading democracy, a friend of Europe, committed to the rule of law? Yes. But even democracies can hide pockets of tyranny in their hearts, a democratic state may well coexist with other systems that are characterized by anything but democracy and law. As the monitoring system which now puts its global tentacles far into the private lives of citizens. By exposing this system Snowden made it possible for us to say No -- this is not a development and a society we want, we protect our civil rights and freedoms when they are threatened.
Snowden's revelations make explicit demands on citizens and politicians to act and react. How have we responded to these demands? Not in any impressive way one must say. Individual politicians and many citizens have reacted, expressed support for Snowden, trying to act in his defense. They see the unpleasant consequences of a surveillance system where innocent citizens get their electronic communication and their phone calls tapped and mapped. The German President Joachim Gauck, with his personal East German experience, for example stated that Snowden "deserves respect" for his actions. But otherwise an awkward silence, evasive answers, gentle tiptoeing. Merkel hums, The European Commission whispers, the parliaments remain silent.
On the Swedish side, even more depressing inaction is observed. Sweden acts together with Britain to make sure the question should not be addressed at European level. This is a bilateral issue and by the way, no Swedish interests are at stake, the Foreign Minister distractedly announces before returning to Twitter. The government obviously sees no reason to allow this issue to eclipse the splendor of Obama's forthcoming state visit. From the political left, a complete disinterest is shown. No social democratic position is advanced or even formulated.
It is tragic to see how thin the liberal veneer is in many places. When liberalism is no longer easy and obvious, when it requires courage and sacrifice, when we are forced to choose and our choices have real costs, what happens then? We fall into line, we bend to power. Without grumbling we let fairly manageable threats from terrorists sweep away fundamental rights and freedoms.
We must demand more of ourselves and our elected officials than that. We could start by giving Edward Snowden the price whose name symbolizes a man who refused to bow to oppression and thereby actually changed history.
Stefan Svallfors
Professor of Sociology at Umeå University
& the Institute for Future Studies
Det kom en länk på IRC! (Tack)
Som jag tyckte var väldigt bra, jag passade på att föreviga den på dfri.se:
https://www.dfri.se/lasvart-fran-tidningen-advokaten-om-vikten-av-snowden/
Ps. För er som inte är i IRC-kanalen så är ni så välkomna till #
dfri_se(a)irc.oftc.net .Ds
--
/Alexander Rydekull
Hej DFRI-listan,
Jag tänkte värma upp med att komma tillbaka från semestern med en
"INI-rapport" i mitt utskott JURI i EP.
*Unleashing the potential of cloud computing in Europe2013/2063(INI)**
*http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2013/2063%28INI%29
Ändringsförslag mottages tacksamt innan deadline 30 augusti.
mvh
//Erik
DRAFT OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs for the Committee on
Industry, Research and Energy on Unleashing the Potential of Cloud
Computing in Europe (2013/2063(INI))
Rapporteur(*): Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
(*) Associated committees -- Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Industry,
Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the
following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
/1. Urges the Commission to take action to further harmonise laws across
the Member States in order to avoid jurisdictional confusion and
fragmentation and to improve the transparency of the digital single
market;//
//
//2. Calls on the Commission to review other EU legislation to address
gaps related to cloud computing; calls, in particular, for the revision
of the intellectual property rights regime, the Unfair Commercial
Practices Directive, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and
the////E-Commerce Directive, which are the most relevant pieces of EU
legislation that apply to cloud computing;//
//
//3. Calls on the Commission to establish a clear legal framework in the
field of copyright content in the cloud, especially with regard to
licensing regulations;//
//
//4. Stresses that, owing to uncertainties regarding applicable law and
jurisdiction, contracts are the main tools for establishing relations
between cloud providers and their customers, and that there is therefore
a clear need for common European guidelines in that field;//
//
//5. Calls on the Commission to work together with the Member States to
develop European best practice models for contracts, or 'model
contracts', that will ensure complete transparency by providing all
terms and conditions in a very clear format;//
//
//6. Calls on the Commission to develop, together with stakeholders,
voluntary certification schemes for provider security systems which
would help to harmonise practices across cloud providers and which would
make clients more aware of what they should expect from cloud service
providers;//
//
//7. Stresses that, owing to jurisdiction problems, European consumers
are in practice unlikely to be able to seek redress from cloud services
providers in other jurisdictions; calls therefore, on the Commission to
provide adequate means for redress in the consumer services area, since
there is a strong imbalance of power between consumers and providers of
cloud computing;//
//
//8. Calls on the Commission to ensure a speedy implementation of
Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution and to make
sure that consumers are equipped with adequate means of collective
redress against security and privacy breaches as well as against illegal
contract provisions for cloud services.//
/
SHORT JUSTIFICATION
Your rapporteur welcomes the Commission's Communication, but considers
it appropriate, in order to ensure that upcoming legislation will be
operative, to call on the Commission to make certain provisions more
stringent and to look at the problem together with all other legislation
that may assist in eliminating barriers and unlocking its full potential.
Cloud computing has a huge potential and should provide benefits for
business, citizens and the public sector1 but, as a new model of
networked computing, poses some legal and contractual risks. Among other
concerns, such as security or supplier lock-in, there is major concern
among both service providers and users regarding the lack of
standardisation which would be required for a single market across
Europe, the diversity of relevant legislation across Europe, currently
unclear contract provisions and the lack of clear rules on intellectual
property rights (IPR).
Recent research shows that 48 % of managers in both the private and the
public sectors are aware that the implementation of cloud computing can
speed up and facilitate their work. More than half of them have not,
however, introduced any procedures to minimise business risks such as
identity theft.
The biggest threat in the cloud are so called 'insiders', those working
in the establishments providing cloud services, who have access to
customer data, followed by other tenants of the service provider in the
cloud, notably in case of a breakdown of isolation mechanisms.
The EU digital single market remains fragmented due to differing legal
regimes among the Member States, and when it comes to IPR only a limited
level of harmonisation has taken place in the wake of the Copyright
Directive. Action must therefore be targeted to address the issue of
cloud services that depend on a uniform IPR regime to cross borders. The
proposals on collective rights management and the private copy levy must
take into account the development of new technologies, in particular
cloud computing services, and clarify the rules for securing IPR in a
digital environment.
According to the recent Commission public consultation on cloud
computing, the legal regime was unclear to respondents in 90 % of cases.
There is general confusion among stakeholders regarding rights and
responsibilities in cross-border cloud computing situations, in
particular with regard to matters relating to liability and
jurisdiction. Coupled with the fragmentation of the internal market,
this calls for further harmonisation of laws across the Member States,
in particular by eliminating gaps and weaknesses in applicable EU
legislation, notably the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the
Unfair Contract Terms Directive in terms of consumer protection, and the
E-Commerce Directive when it comes to exemptions from private copy levies.
Consumers and SMEs who want to make use of public clouds are often faced
with 'take-it-or-leave-it' contracts, most often tick-box agreements.
The Commission should therefore, together with the Member States,
consider introducing clearer rules or model contracts. There is a need
for guidelines and standardised model contract schemes setting out the
key terms and conditions that are important to users, while increasing
transparency.
Cloud users should furthermore be able to evaluate any cloud service
offer on the basis of standardised procedures regarding the security and
warranties provided by the service,
so-called Service Level Agreements (SLA). A voluntary certification
scheme enabling users to evaluate and compare, in a simple manner, the
level of conformity to standards, interoperability and the security
systems of cloud services should therefore be implemented at European
level, taking into account the differences encountered in these respects
at the three different levels of service: Infrastructure as a Service
(IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS).
The first case concerns security equipment, supply lines, data, etc. In
the second case, responsibility for security largely lies with the
client, who should adequately protect their data. In the third,
responsibility lies with the supplier.
The provision of adequate means of redress for users when it comes to
cloud computing service providers is necessary, in particular in the
consumer service area. Owing to jurisdictional problems, European
consumers are currently in practice unlikely to be able to seek redress
from the service provider. The Commission should therefore speed up the
implementation of Alternative and Online Dispute Resolution and forms of
collective redress in order to facilitate the solving of conflicts in
this area faced by users, without putting too much additional pressure
on national courts.
Hejsan!
Jag hoppas ni är sugna på att kolla på lite film och vara med på öppningen
av "Nordic Creative Common Film Festival".
Piratpartiet i Stockholms län (via våra EU-parlamentariker) upplät
europahuset för premiären så de kunde ha en fin premiär (kostnadsfritt
såklart) som allmänheten kan njuta av.
Här är en inbjudan av Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqDAzzKx2XE
Här är facebook-eventet för själva premiären den 30:e augusti:
https://www.facebook.com/events/552071578179335/
Här kan man fixa sin gratisbiljett:
http://events.nordicfilmfestival.cc/#!/events/25
Själva premiären hålls i Europahuset på regeringsgatan mitt i Stockholm,
men vem som helst kan hålla en visning med CC-film vart man än känner för
det och via en "app" registrera in sin visning i programmet.
Vänligen
/Erik Lönroth, Piratpartiet i Stockholms län
PTS-knappen fortsätter att skapa nya vänner :-)
/andreas
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Diarieföring hos PTS
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:16:41 +0000
From: <Erica.Nystrom(a)pts.se>
To: <andreas(a)romab.com>
Hej Andreas.
Alla handlingar och meddelanden som kommer in till en myndighet är
allmän handling. Lagen kräver inte att allmänna handlingar särskilt
registreras, under förutsättning att de hålls ordnade på ett sätt så att
det utan svårighet kan fastställas att de inkommit eller upprättats. (se
5 kap. 1 § offentlighets- och sekretesslagen). PTS håller alla inkomna
frågor och klagomål ordnade på ett sätt som uppfyller lagens krav. En
anmälan till PTS leder inte alltid till att myndigheten inleder ett
tillsynsärende. PTS måste prioritera bland alla uppgifter som åligger
myndigheten. I de fall PTS väljer att inleda ett tillsynsärende
registreras detta som ett ärende i vårt diarium. Sådana ärenden finns
också tillgängliga i vårt online-diarium.
Med vänliga hälsningar
Erica Nyström
Verksjurist
Post- och telestyrelsen (PTS)
Rättssekretariatet
Telefon: 08-678 56 35
Mobil: 073-644 56 35
erica.nystrom(a)pts.se<mailto:brita.soderstrom@pts.se>
www.pts.se<http://www.pts.se/>
PTS arbetar för att alla i Sverige ska ha tillgång till
effektiva, prisvärda och säkra kommunikationstjänster.
Hej PTS!
Jag har sökt i PTS diarium online efter ärenden som berör LEK 6 kap 18
§ under 2013[1].
Jag har inte hittat något ärende, trots att jag är säker på att ett
flertal anmälningar skickats till PTS registrator-adress
<pts(a)pts.se<mailto:pts@pts.se>> under den tidsperioden.
> >
> > Jag skulle därför vilja fråga om alla meddelanden som skickas till > > pts(a)pts.se<mailto:pts@pts.se> diarieförs? Om inte, vad eller vem avgör om ett meddelande publiceras i online-diariet?
> >
> > Tacksam för svar.
> >
> > Vänliga hälsningar
> > Andreas Jonsson
> > https://dfri.se
> >
> > [1] http://e-tjanster.pts.se/ovrigt/diariet/
> >
Jag skulle tänkt på det här tidigare, men det kom över mig starkt igen nu när edri-folk har börjat gräva i nätneutralitetfrågan.
Jag vill ha en telekompinne!
Alltså en sån här: http://euwiki.org/Propensities/Free_Infrastructure
Eller inte bara en, utan kanske fem-sex tusen...
... till att börja med :-)
Ville säga detta innan styrelsemötet.
//Erik
Erik Josefsson
BE GSM: +32484082063
SE GSM: +46707696567
----- Reply message -----
Från: "Linus Nordberg" <linus(a)nordberg.se>
Till: "Patrik Wallström" <pawal(a)blipp.com>
Kopia: <listan(a)lists.dfri.se>
Rubrik: [DFRI-listan] Styrelsemöte på onsdag
Datum: mån, aug 19, 2013 16:35
Patrik Wallström <pawal(a)blipp.com> wrote
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:26:33 +0200:
| På onsdag har vi styrelsemötet. Som ni vet är de öppna för medlemmar. Men skicka ett mail till styrelsen, dfri(a)dfri.se om ni vill närvara.
För att vara petig så är dfri@ styrelsen plus ett fåtal andra personer.
Men skicka gärna dit.
| https://www.dfri.se/dfri/motesprotokoll/motesprotokoll6-20130821/
Det saknas föredragande person på några punkter.
Punkt 4: Kommer Johan N?
Punk 13: Vem drar mejlfrågan? Jag kan om ingen annan känner sig manad.
Punkt 14: Pawal?
| Som ni noterar är det också en liten informell PGP-signering i en senare punkt. Skriv ut era fingerprints om ni behöver lite signaturer.
Vissa vill se foto-legitimation för att signera nycklar också.
På onsdag har vi styrelsemötet. Som ni vet är de öppna för medlemmar. Men skicka ett mail till styrelsen, dfri(a)dfri.se om ni vill närvara.
Det är alltså 18.00 onsdagen 21/8 i Stockholm.
Agendan hittar ni här:
https://www.dfri.se/dfri/motesprotokoll/motesprotokoll6-20130821/
Som ni noterar är det också en liten informell PGP-signering i en senare punkt. Skriv ut era fingerprints om ni behöver lite signaturer.