Listan

listan@lists.dfri.se

836 discussions

01 .SE Nyhetsbrev januari 2014
by Linus Nordberg 01 Feb '14

01 Feb '14

Hej listan! Vidarebefordrar senaste upplagan av Staffan Jonsons utmärkta nyhetsbrev om internets styrning. Kontakta Staffan direkt för egen prenumeration. P.S. Den som inte tittar på DFRI:s hemsida varje dag eller följer @dfri_se på Twitter kanske missade https://www.dfri.se/internet-ar-undergravt/ igår.

2 1

Spoiled Onions
by Elof Ofel 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

Jag vet inte om ni redan sett och mailat listan om detta Research paper om 'exitmap', en Tor-exit-node-scanner som kollar om exit-noden modifierar eller MitM:ar trafiken. http://www.cs.kau.se/philwint/spoiled_onions/ /Martin

2 2

Köp en igelkott! :-)
by Erik Josefsson 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

Den e jätesöt o snel: http://www.freeguras.com/shop/en/free-software-figures-mascots/57-figure-ed… //Erik

1 0

Amelia Andersdotter (PP) usedd till Internetrådgivare åt FN
by Erik Lönroth 21 Jan '14

21 Jan '14

Piratpartiet når internationella framgångar i samband med att Amelia som enda svensk får ingå i MAG. "... bestående av 55 personer som ska representera myndigheter, företag, civilsamhället och tekniker i förberedelserna inför den årliga konferensen." http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/piratpartiet/pressreleases/piratpartist-utsedd… /Erik Lönroth -- DFRI-listan Ã¤r Ã¶ppen fÃ¶r alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras Ã¶ppet pÃ¥ internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri

1 0

Slipstensdragare Ante Wessels drar Ombudsmannen inför Ombudsmannen
by Erik Josefsson 19 Jan '14

19 Jan '14

Enjoy... http://acta.ffii.org/?p=2009 EU Ombudsman conflates negotiation and ratification documents January 19, 2014 By Ante <http://acta.ffii.org/?author=2> I wrote a letter to the European Ombudsman to solve a misunderstanding regarding my complaint against the European Parliament (see below or pdf <http://people.ffii.org/%7Eante/acta/FFII-Ombudsman-2014-01-19.pdf>). ACTA is dead in Europe <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1612>, but there are still issues with disclosure of documents. In 2012, the European Parliament refused to disclose <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1137> the parliament's legal service's opinion on ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. In September 2013 I filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1948> against the European Parliament over this. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman didn't want to investigate my complaint, so I asked her to reconsider her decision <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1956>. Her reply now shows she misunderstood my complaint. In her reply, she refers to a decision on negotiation documents. This clarifies what went wrong. My complaint does not regard negotiation documents, but ratification documents. Negotiation documents are made by the negotiators (Commission, governments) during the negotiations. Ratification documents are made by the European Parliament (or Council) after the negotiations, during the ratification process. According to EU case law <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1761> institutions can refuse to disclose negotiation documents to protect mutual trust among negotiators. After the negotiations, the Commission published the final text. The contested legal service's opinion is an assessment of this published text. Disclosure of this opinion can not harm the mutual trust among negotiators. Citizen participation in ratification processes is essential, especially if the prior negotiations were confidential. An Ombudsman decision that legal service's opinions related to the ratification process have to be disclosed would be of major importance for citizens. Additionally, in my complaint <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1948> against the parliament I argue that EU law is not compatible with the human right to participate in decision making processes. An Ombudsman discussion on this argument could also be interesting. *Other issues* The preparatory ACTA documents are still secret, despite an EDRi complaint <http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/50947/html.bookma…> to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman added an interesting Further remark to the decision: "Given that Parliament's application of Regulation 1049/2001 is affected by commitments such as the one entered into by the Commission in this case, Parliament, as a political body, could intervene with the Commission and the Council with a view to ensuring that, in future, the very nature of Parliament, which is openly to deliberate on such issues, is not undermined." The parliament lied about the existence of coordinators' minutes related to ACTA. Last year I filed a complaint <http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1631> with the Ombudsman against this. Beyond ACTA, Corporate Europe Observatory has an interesting appeal running over negotiation documents <http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/appeal-filed-over-business-lo…> and the Council appeals against the judgment of the General Court <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=127337&pageI…> (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 4 May 2012 in Case T-529/09: Sophie in 't Veld v Council (Case C-350/12 P). ------------------- complaint 1814/2013/RT 19 January 2014 Dear Ms O'Reilly, I would like to kindly thank you for your reply on my request to reconsider your decision on complaint 1814/2013/RT. In your reply you refer to a decision on negotiation documents. This shows a misunderstanding of my complaint, as my complaint does not regard negotiation documents but ratification documents, for which disclosure is the norm. You conflate negotiation and ratification documents and erroneously apply case law on negotiation documents also on ratification documents. As the issues at stake are important and a fundamental misunderstanding came to light, I hereby ask you to reconsider your reply. *Ratification documents versus negotiation documents* It is essential to make a distinction between negotiation documents and ratification documents. Negotiation documents are made by the negotiators (Commission, governments) during the negotiations. Ratification documents are made by the European Parliament (or Council) after the negotiations, during the ratification process. Almost all negotiation documents are kept secret for a long time. Almost all ratification documents are immediately disclosed. According to EU case law, disclosure of negotiation documents can harm the public interest as regards the protection of international relations. In 2009, I was the first in Europe to file a complaint against the secrecy of ACTA negotiation documents, Complaint 90/2009/(JD)OV. While the complaint did not lead to disclosure of documents, the Ombudsman's formulation "citizens would have a clear interest in being informed about the ACTA" still was influential in the political process. Of course, years later, I didn't refile a similar complaint -- it wouldn't have made sense. My present complaint does not regard negotiation documents, but ratification documents. ACTA was initialed on 25 November 2010, this marked the end of the negotiations. The Commission published the final text, to be scrutinized and possibly ratified. After years of secret negotiations, finally public scrutiny and debate could start. The contested legal service's opinions are assessments of the published final text. Neither the published final text nor the legal service's opinions contain negotiation positions or anything like that. The Parliament immediately published almost all ACTA ratification documents, such as studies, workshops, human rights assessment, debates, (draft) committee opinions and report. The Parliament only made some exceptions. First, the Parliament obscured the existence of committee coordinators' minutes. In 2012 I filed a complaint regarding these minutes, Complaint 0262/2012/OV. Second, the Parliament refused to disclose the contested legal service's opinions (which the Parliament produced itself in 2011, after the negotiations). While my 2009 complaint regarded negotiation documents, my 2012 and present complaint regard ratification documents. During the ACTA negotiations, the Parliament had stressed the importance of openness. After the negotiations the Parliament produced and refused to disclose the contested legal service's opinions -- this shocked or amazed many people. At a Dutch House of Representatives' committee meeting, 13 December 2011, minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, Maxime Verhagen, said the refusal to disclose the European Parliament's legal service's opinion on ACTA was "gek" (odd/silly/crazy). He also said: "I support this Dutch citizen in spirit and deed". http://acta.ffii.org/?p=975 Why would a legal service's opinion on an officially published text be kept secret? The Parliament did not refer to protection of the negotiations -- that would not have been convincing as the negotiations were over before the documents were produced. To keep the legal service's opinions secret, the Parliament invoked the public interest as regards the protection of international relations. The Parliament used a sole justification for invoking the public interest as regards the protection of international relations: article 18 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). The Parliament also invoked the protections of legal advice and the ongoing decision making process. *Conflating negotiation and ratification documents is unfounded* In your reply to my letter, the Ombudsman overlooks the distinction between negotiation documents and ratification documents, the Ombudsman conflates them. While my complaint is about ratification documents, the Ombudsman refers to a decision on negotiation documents. Two things go wrong here. First, by referring to negotiation documents, the Ombudsman uses an argument which the Parliament itself did not use. The Parliament (rightly) did not conflate negotiation and ratification documents. The Parliament's sole justification for invoking the protection of international relations is article 18 VCLT. Second, decisions and case law on negotiation documents do not apply to ratification documents. The Ombudsman refers to Complaint 2393/2011/RA. The decision in Complaint 2393/2011/RA is based on Case T-301/10 In 't Veld v Commission. According to Case T-301/10 negotiation documents can be kept secret to allow mutual trust between negotiators and the development of a free and effective discussion during the negotiations (para. 119). The decisive arguments in Case T-301/10 can not be used against disclosure in my case. Disclosure of the contested documents neither discloses negotiation positions nor disturbs mutual trust between negotiators or the development of a free and effective discussion during negotiations -- as the negotiations were over before the documents were made, made by others than the negotiators, and the documents are just legal service's opinions on a publicly available text. As a result, Complaint 2393/2011/RA and Case T-301/10 are unrelated to my complaint. For similar reasons, Case T-529/09 Sophie in 't Veld v Council is unrelated to my complaint. Case law on negotiation documents can not prejudice the openness of the contested legal service's opinions. The Ombudsman states that she has already taken a stance on similar if not identical arguments in Complaint 2393/2011/RA. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding as the Ombudsman decided Complaint 2393/2011/RA by referring to Case T-301/10, both of which, as we saw above, can not prejudice the openness of the contested documents. Ratification documents are not negotiation documents. Furthermore, in Complaint 2393/2011/RA the complainant invoked article 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In my case, the Parliament invoked article 18 VCLT. That is an other article. *Ratification documents* We saw above that case law on negotiation documents can not prejudice the openness of the contested documents. In my opinion, investigating my complaint involves three major questions. First, did the Parliament err in law regarding article 18 VCLT? If the answer is affirmative, the Parliament's sole justification for invoking the protection of international relations falls away. Second, did I provide overwhelming public interest in disclosure? If the answer is affirmative, the protections of legal advice and the ongoing decision making process fall away. Third, is the Parliament's decision conform human rights law? In my complaint I argue that citizens have a human right to participate. The EU can only skip this human right by law, if necessary in a democratic society, and if proportionate. If the answers to the first two questions are affirmative, the Parliament has to officially disclose the legal service's opinions. If the answer to the third question is negative, the Parliament has to officially disclose the legal service's opinions. *Documents not officially disclosed* The Ombudsman states that the documents were officially disclosed by an MEP. This is not correct, the documents could not be officially disclosed by an MEP, as they were produced upon request of committees. The coordinators of the legal affairs committee decided to release the documents, but did not actually do that. According to the Parliament, the coordinators were not competent to do this. See the 14 March 2012 answer to my 19 February 2012 confirmatory application: "(...) no decision exists to fully disclose document SJ661/11 which has been formally adopted by any competent political body of the European Parliament." *Effet utile* In my opinion, there is a serious chance an investigation will lead to the decision that the Parliament has to officially disclose the legal service's opinions. Indeed, why would legal service's opinions on an officially published text be kept secret? Citizen participation in ratification processes is essential, especially if the prior negotiations were confidential. An Ombudsman decision that the legal service's opinions have to be disclosed would be of major importance for citizens. This will help citizens (including me) in the future. While citizens will be able to challenge the Parliament's error in law in the future, if made again, the procedures to do this will take so much time that the parliamentary ratification process of an international agreement will long be over before citizens (including me) will have gained access to the legal service's opinion. Timely discussion of the Parliament's error in law (now) and future timely disclosure of legal service's opinions is essential for citizens' participation in the decision making process. Discussion of my human rights argument may bring further effet utile. yours sincerely, Ante Wessels

1 0

The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance
by Patrik Wallström 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

I USA har flera organisationer tillsammans initierat kampanjen The Day We Fight Back Against Mass Surveillance. Min tanke är att det borde hända något liknande i Sverige, med åtminstone någon form av upplysningskampanj om vad det är som händer, och vad som borde göras i Sverige. Tanken är att kampanjen ska ske den 11:e februari. https://thedaywefightback.org/ Är det någon här på listan som har några idéer kring detta? Kan vi kanske skapa någon informativ text och webbsida som förklarar vad det är som händer och som man kan sätta i händerna på journalister som borde skriva mer om detta?

1 0

Januaris länklista
by Emil Tullstedt 15 Jan '14

15 Jan '14

Hej! Linus föreslog på mötet idag att jag satte samman tre paragrafer med lite saker som människor här i listan borde ha koll på - so here goes: Den 5:e december, samma dag som :DFRIs sista CryptoParty 2013 kom EU Kommissionen med en "konsultation" där de frågar allmänheten om vad de tycker om upphovsrättslagstiftningen i Europa[1]. Konsultationen släpptes med en 61 dagars svarstid, vilken löper ut 5:e februari - och för alla som tycker att det är viktigt med upphovsrätten eller påverka DRMs juridiska skydd så är det superviktigt och väldigt konkret att svara på konsultationen. Piratpartiets EU-parlamentariker Amelia Andersdotter har släppt en guide till vilka av konsultationens 80 frågor som är mest relevanta för dig beroende på intresseområde[2]. Utifrån Amelias guide har också webbsidorna http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/ och http://copywrongs.eu/ dykt upp (den tidigare är mer utförlig och till för föreningar, företag och privatpersoner med stort intresse av frågan medan den senare är riktad till privatpersoner som vill lätt kunna svara på frågorna i konsultationen. Den 20 juni 2013 släppte regeringen en departementspromemoria (undersökning) ds 2013:43[3] där Kulturdepartementet efterfrågade en lagstiftning som skulle illegalisera privat införskaffande och nyttjande av utrustning för att kringå s.k. tekniska skydd (DRM, med andra ord). Remissvaren lämnades in senast 20 september 2013, och 64 företag (nästintill alla representanter för upphovsrättsindustrin eller myndigheter) kallades som remissinstanser[4]. Promemorian uppmärksammades inte, och därför är de remissvar som kommit in nästintill exlusivt från organisationer utan intresse av att skydda individens rätt att nyttja den elektroniken man har köpt på sätt som inte är menade, kanske genom att för privat bruk spela in program på TV och liknande. Jag känner att det är högaktuellt att påpeka problematiken i lagstiftningen kring tekniska skydd för att slippa se en lag som väldigt tydligt ger företag en möjlighet att begränsa sina kunders rättigheter. I lördags var det ett år sedan HR-aktivisten, mannen som stoppade SOPA, Demand Progress- och Reddit-grundaren Aaron Swartz begick självmord. Aaron var nog den enskilt viktigaste faktorn för varför jag beslöt mig att det var dags att engagera mig för mänskliga rättigheter och inte bara sitta och se på suckandes om hur politikerna inte fattar ett skit. Jag fastnade i allt som skrevs om Aaron, hans arbete fascinerade mig och hans död förfärade mig. När jag i höstas såg trailern till dokumentären om människan jag bara vagt hade hört om och alls kände så kunde jag inte sluta gråta[5]. Det säger kanske inte så mycket, för jag har väldigt lätt för att gråta när det handlar om människor vars mänskliga rättigheter inte skyddas ens av deras egna regeringar. Amerikanska Internetdrivna organisationer har beslutat att i minne av Aaron avsätta den 11 februari som The Day We Fight Back[6] - och vi pratade på mötet idag om hur vi kan uppmärksamma alla de problem vi ser här i Sverige och i EU på den dagen, men kom inte fram till något konkret. Är det någon som har en schysst idé, har en vän som har en schysst idé eller vadsomhelst så var en stor del av mötesdeltagarna idag intresserade av att hänga på aktioner. -- Emil Tullstedt sakjur [1] http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/inde… [2] https://ameliaandersdotter.eu/upphovsrattskonsultationen-modellsvar [3] http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/16859/a/219787 [4] http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/21/95/85/a46de523.pdf [5] http://aaronswartzthedocumentary.com/ [6] https://thedaywefightback.org/ Inlinelänkar: - http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/ - http://copywrongs.eu/ -- DFRI-listan Ã¤r Ã¶ppen fÃ¶r alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras Ã¶ppet pÃ¥ internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri

1 0

Fwd: [RGIG] Det behövs bättre representation i ICANN av internets "slutanvändare"
by Marcin de Kaminski 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

Fk -- Marcin de Kaminski PhDc Sociology of Law, University of Lund Lund University Internet Institute, Cybernorms Research Group Personal homepage - www.dekaminski.se Phone#: +46-(0)768 04 51 51 (Sent frpm my iPhbne.) Vidarebefordrat brev: > Från: Anders Hektor <anders.hektor(a)REGERINGSKANSLIET.SE> > Datum: 9 januari 2014 15:17:03 CET > Till: RGIG(a)LIST.PTS.SE > Ämne: [RGIG] Det behövs bättre representation i ICANN av internets "slutanvändare" > Svara till: RGIG <RGIG(a)LIST.PTS.SE> > > Hej Vänner, > Sprid gärna följande till de ni tror har ett intresse. > /Anders > > Vid ICANN:s möte i London i sommar, 23-26 juni, planerar ALAC genomföra ATLAS II, dvs den andra At-Large Internet Summit, som kommer locka hundratals organisationer för internetanvändare från jordens alla hörn. > > ICANN sköts som många vet i sk flerpartssamverkan, eller med en multistakeholder-modell. Den går ut på att ICANN:s styrelse fattar alla beslut och tar in råd från rådgivande kommitteer (Advisory Committee, AC) och stödjande organisationer (Supporting Organisations, SO). Representanter för AC/SO har platser i ICANN:s styrelse. > > Internetanvändares intressen är (bland annat) representerade genom civilsamhällets deltagande i At-Large Advisory Committee, ALAC, och det är denna grupp jag vill puffa lite för eftersom den har liten eller ingen svensk representation. > > ALAC består av regionala At-Large grupper, där den Europeiska heter European Regional At-Large Organization, EURALO. Man kan registrera sin organisation som medlem där (exempelvis en ISOC-chapter, förening för äldre användare, funktionshindrade, inklusions-inriktade föreningar, etc.) och man kan delta online och IRL på möten för att påverka ICANN:s beslutsfattande med återverkan på alla internetanvändare. > > Det vore bra med en starkare representation av svenska internetanvändare i detta globala sammanhang, särskilt som betydelsen av internets förvaltning ökar. > > Mer om ATLAS II (det verkar inte finnas ett färdigt program): > http://atlarge.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23may05.htm > > Mer om ICANN och dess olika AC/SO: > http://www.icann.org/en/groups > > Här är tips på en utmärkt artikel som beskriver landskapet för internets förvaltning och de frågor som kommer bli aktuella under 2014: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131231_internet_governance_outlook_2014_goo… > > Vänliga hälsningar > Anders Hektor > > Anders Hektor > Kansliråd > Enheten för it-politik > Näringsdepartementet > 103 33 Stockholm > 08-405 11 20 > 070-208 9769 > anders.hektor(a)regeringskansliet.se<mailto:anders.hektor@regeringskansliet.se> > www.regeringen.se<http://www.regeringen.se/>

1 0

EU draft report on US NSA surveillance programme
by James Losey 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

The European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has released a draft report on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs. Hits a lot good points including how the US (and some EU member states) are undermining state sovereignty, human rights, and creating a regime that can be used for political and economic gain. The reports questions the validity and legality of mass surveillance, notes that the US and EU surveillance oversight bodies lack democratic legitimacy as well as technical expertise. A couple quotes: "Notes that several governments claim that these mass surveillance programmes are necessary to combat terrorism; wholeheartedly supports the fight against terrorism, but strongly believes that it can never in itself be a justification for untargeted, secret and sometimes even illegal mass surveillance programmes; expresses concerns, therefore, regarding the legality, necessity and proportionality of these programmes;" (p16). [Additionally, the report specifically calls out the detainment of David Miranda as a limitation of freedom of expression - p. 26] "Considers that large-scale access by US intelligence agencies to EU personal data processed by Safe Harbour does not per se meet the criteria for derogation under ‘national security'" (20) The report: - "Calls on the US authorities and the EU Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and bulk processing of personal data" (19) - Ensure that surveillance is in-line with European Human Rights - Urges states to take court action against breaches of sovereignty resulting from surveillance - Calls on the US to revise legislation - On the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement emphasises that Parliament "only consent to the final TTIP agreement provided the agreement fully respects fundamental rights recognised by the EU Charter, and that the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data must continue to be governed by Article XIV of the GATS." (24) I'm not sure what they mean by "suspend data flows" in this paragraph on p. 22. Doesn't anyone have any ideas? I feel this could be potentially concerning depending on what they mean: 39. Calls on the Member States to prohibit or suspend data flows to third countries based on the standard contractual clauses, contractual clauses or BCRs authorised by the national competent authorities where it is established that the law to which the data importer is subject imposes upon him requirements which go beyond the restrictions necessary in a democratic society and which are likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the guarantees provided by the applicable data protection law and the standard contractual clauses, or because continuing transfer would create an imminent risk of grave harm to the data subjects The report is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML…

2 1

Mötesprotokoll #10 2013
by Linus Nordberg 07 Jan '14

07 Jan '14

Hej listan! Protokoll från 2013 års sista möte finns på https://www.dfri.se/dfri/motesprotokoll/10-20131228/ . Det var ett ovanligt möte utan beslut men med desto mera diskussion. Nästa möte är redan nästa vecka, onsdag den 15:e. Medlemmar välkomna! Mejla dfri(a)dfri.se. -- DFRI-listan är öppen för alla. Listan arkiveras och publiceras öppet på internet. http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.dfri

1 0

← Newer
1
...
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
...
84
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Listan