Listan

listan@lists.dfri.se

798 discussions

Anonymous or pseudonymised data in the proposed general data protection regulation
by Erik Josefsson 30 Apr '13

30 Apr '13

Bra grejjer från Holland: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~noordend/publications/DPR-GvN-final.pdf Alldeles färskt: Guido van't Noordende, Informatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, April 30, 2013 //Erik *Summary of main points** * - Definitions of anonymous or pseudonymous data are unnecessary if a good definition of personal data exists. Currently proposed definitions of anonymous and pseudonymous data focus narrowly on removing directly identifiable features from microdata, thus ignoring significant risks of re-identifyability of the remaining data. - Current Article 83 creates an exemption from DPR rules that allows usage of data for "historic, statistical, and scientific research" even if identifiable, without consent. This is too lenient, particularly given the broad application of Article 83 within the DPR. - Medical information looses its special protection in the DPR (compared to 95/46/EC) under the original definition of Article 81 in the commission's proposal. A consent requirement should be included in Article 81(2). Also, Article 83 should not permit for processing of special categories of information for historical, statistical and scientific research without explicit consent. - Re-identification mechanisms have been described for years, and it has been shown that combination of "anonymised" (or pseudonymised) data with other (background) information is straightforward. If due to new DPR regulations more and more "anonymised" micro-information becomes available, this problem is exacerbated, as re-identifcation and/or linkage of this information with other information becomes even more straightforward. - Pseudonymised information, due to its inherent property of linkability and longitudinal stability (i.e., being the same over time), may bring additional risks compared to using anonymous data. Pseudonymization is usable as a tool for securing information during processing, but should not be used as a means to escape DPR rules such as accountability and transparency.

1 0

Fwd: [PT-Com] IMCO: Accessibility of public sector bodies' websites
by Erik Josefsson 27 Apr '13

27 Apr '13

Halloj. ParlTrack mailade just om den här lilla dossiern. Det kanske är läge att fixa så att det blir olagligt att blocka Tor? Beställ ändringsförslag från Joe så tror jag säkert det finns villiga MEPar som vill tejbla. //Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PT-Com] IMCO: Accessibility of public sector bodies' websites Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:04:39 +0200 (CEST) From: parltrack(a)parltrack.euwiki.org Parltrack has detected 2012/0340(COD) on the schedule of IMCO on 2013-05-07 11:45:00 - Exchange of views - Deadline for tabling amendments: 3 July 2013, 12.00 see the details here: http://parltrack.euwiki.org/dossier/2012/0340(COD) Your Parltrack team

1 0

vad ska knappen heta? PTS/kakor igen
by Andreas Jonsson 25 Apr '13

25 Apr '13

Ok, innan vi ögr något mer borde vi bestämma namn. Förslag som finns: PTS-rapport (nuvarande) PTS-knappen DFRI Cookie reporter DFRI - Cookie reporter DFRI - Kakrapporten DFRI - Kakrapportören Lägg till fler om ni kommer på några, eller om vi nu kommer till konsensus direkt. /andreas

7 11

Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder om TDV
by Linus Nordberg 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Hej! Knappt har nyheten om FRA:s "tekniskt detekterings- och varningssystem" (TDV) publicerats [1] innan Amel skriver kritiskt om det [2]. Bra Amel! FRA:s generaldirektör har varit ute och pratat om det här några gånger den senaste tiden, senast på Google Tent-tillställningen för några veckor sedan. Det skall bli intressant att höra vad Datainspektionen har att säga. Ja, kanske intressant vad Siun [3] säger också förstås. I Siun sitter fem män och två kvinner -- en riksdagsledamot, fyra före detta riksdagsledamöter, en "lagman" (dvs domare i en tingsrätt) och en f.d. kammarrättspresident. [1] http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/internet/article3682379.ece [2] https://www.iis.se/blogg/vad-var-det-vi-sa-fra/ [3] http://www.siun.se/

1 0

FRA igen.
by Andreas Jonsson 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Ändamålsglidning av FRA någon? Givetvis otrevligt att kablarna nu också ska avlyssnas inom sverige. Inte osannorlikt att detta får ytterligare en chilling effect med att kontakta myndigheter. Självklart berättas det inte var i näten dessa prylar står. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/it_telekom/internet/article3682379.ece .SE har redan svarat: https://www.iis.se/blogg/vad-var-det-vi-sa-fra/ /andreas

1 0

SV: Re: [DFRI-listan] vad ska knappen heta? PTS/kakor igen
by Linda 24 Apr '13

24 Apr '13

Kakrapportören är kul! Skickat från min Samsung Mobil -------- Original message -------- Subject: Re: [DFRI-listan] vad ska knappen heta? PTS/kakor igen From: Linus Nordberg <linus(a)nordberg.se> To: Andreas Jonsson <andreas(a)romab.com> CC: DFRI-listan <listan(a)lists.dfri.se> Andreas Jonsson <andreas(a)romab.com> wrote Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:43:23 +0200: | Ok, innan vi ögr något mer borde vi bestämma namn. | | Förslag som finns: | | PTS-rapport (nuvarande) | PTS-knappen | DFRI Cookie reporter | DFRI - Cookie reporter | DFRI - Kakrapporten | DFRI - Kakrapportören | | Lägg till fler om ni kommer på några, eller om vi nu kommer till | konsensus direkt. Baserat på namnen på dom sex stycken Firefox-extensions som jag har installerade så verkar det inte vanligt att inkluderar något namn på sig själv eller sin organisation i namnet. Kommer vi att verka fåniga om vi gör det? Jag tycker att "Cookie reporter" och "Kakrapportören" är bra namn.

1 0

DeGucht: "A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice."
by Erik Josefsson 23 Apr '13

23 Apr '13

En liten påminnelse om vad DeGucht sa innan EP sa nej till ACTA (my bolds): "If you decide for a negative vote before the European Court rules, let me tell you that *the Commission will nonetheless continue to pursue the current procedure before the Court*, as we are entitled to do. *A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice*. [...] Second, once we will have identified and discussed these possible clarifications, I would intend to *make a second request for consent to the European Parliament*. Whether the Parliament will consider it under this legislature or the subsequent one, will be for you to decide." Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Q8sSndEcs Text: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-477_en.htm?locale=en Om man hård-drar det sa DeGucht att det inte spelar nån roll om EP röstar ja eller nej, eftersom domstolen kommer att säga att ACTA är okej iallafall. Det är därför det är så intressant att få veta vad som tillslut fick kommissionen tillslut bestämde sig för att dra tillbaka sitt case. Kanske DeGucht helt enkelt hittade på att EP lika gärna kunde rösta Ja till ACTA, eftersom domstolen ändå skulle ha sista ordet? Kanske DeGucht inte var kapabel att förstå att om EP röstade Nej så skulle domstolen säga att det inte fanns nåt att fråga om? Två veckor efter att EP sa nej till ACTA så skrev EPs rättstjänst att det inte fanns nåt att fråga om längre: *"Par consequent, la demande d'avis presentee par la Commission europeenne est devenue sans objet."** *https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EP_written_observations.pdf Alltså, ACTA är inte längre ett "objekt", eller bättre, det finns inte längre något föremål för domstolen att uttala sig om. Nu var det ju bara EPs rättstjänst som tyckte det, men jag tycker ändå inte att det är okej att en kommissionär drar en vals som DeGucht uppenbarligen gjorde när han kategoriskt uttalar att: *"A negative vote will not stop the proceedings before the Court of Justice."* Det är ju nämligen inte han som bestämmer det! Det är ju domstolen!! Särskilt olustigt blir det när detta självsäkra halvkväde används för att få MEParna att tro att det inte spelar nån roll om dom röstar Nej eller inte. Som sagt, vad var det fick kommissionen att dra tillbaka sitt case? Kommissionen säger själva att det var en fråga från domstolen som fick dom att ändra sig. Så kan vi få se det dokumentet, tack? //Erik

1 0

Access to ACTA documents
by Linus Nordberg 22 Apr '13

22 Apr '13

Dear President Barroso, Further to your answer E-000018/2013 [1] we have asked the President of the European Parliament for the document that, according to your spokesperson [2], is the reason why you finally decided to withdraw your ACTA referral. To our surprise, the European Parliament's Public Access to documents Unit denies that you have sent the document [3]. For a citizen this in inexplicable, which is why we would like to ask the following to understand how your treaty obligation to inform the European Parliament [4] works in practice: 1) Do you register all documents that you send to the European Parliament? 2) Does that registration include to whom in the European Parliament you are sending a document? 3) Did you register the document we are asking for? 4) Did that registration include to whom in the European Parliament you sent that document? 5) Can you send us the document? and finally 6) Would you consider a telephone call (mobile or fixed line) a way of informing the European Parliament within the meaning of your treaty obligation mentioned above? Thank you very much in advance for sending us the document and for helping us understand why the European Parliament's Public Access to documents Unit says it has not received it. With best regards, Linus Nordberg DFRI - Föreningen för digitala fri- och rättigheter https://dfri.se/index.en [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2013-00001… [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCBTFh3IhQY [3] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EP-response-2013-04-15.txt [4] http://euwiki.org/TFEU#Article_218

1 0

Fwd: [hub] [ttip] FFII letter to EP INTA committee on agreement with US
by Erik Josefsson 22 Apr '13

22 Apr '13

Det bästa jag läst hittills om det kommande handelsavtalet mellan EU och USA (typ ACTA II). Vi har typ två svennar i INTA: http://parltrack.euwiki.org/committee/INTA#members //Erik -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [hub] [ttip] FFII letter to EP INTA committee on agreement with US Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:09:30 +0200 From: Ante Wessels <ante(a)ffii.org> To: hub(a)icg.greens-efa.eu FFII letter to European Parliament Trade committee on agreement with US http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1836 with links April 22, 2013 By Ante Today the FFII sent a letter to the European Parliament committee on International Trade. Wednesday 25 April 2013 the committee will vote on 198 amendments to a draft resolution on the EU – US trade agreement (TTIP / TAFTA) Text as pdf, or below: 22 April 2013 Dear Members of the International Trade committee, We are writing to express our concerns with the proposed trade agreement with the US (TTIP). We invite you to take our concerns into account when voting on the amendments to the draft resolution on the TTIP. In this letter we argue that citizens have a right to openness; that all measures in the agreement have to fully respect our rights enshrined in human rights instruments, including the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; that the agreement has to exclude intellectual property rights; and that the Parliament has to step in and defend democracy and the Treaties by excluding investor to state dispute settlement from the agreement. Openness The agreement will mostly attempt to deeply integrate EU and US laws, as the trade tariffs between the EU and US are already low. In our opinion, a deep integration of laws has to take place in public. Negotiations in international organisations show that openness is possible. Citizens have a right to openness. Everyone has the right “to take part freely in an active and informed way, and without discrimination, in any important decision-making process that may have an impact on his or her way of life and on his or her rights under article 15, paragraph 1 (a)” of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (ECOSOC, 2009) Companies will have access to the draft texts. In the US hundreds of advisors, many of them corporate lobbyists, are considered cleared advisors. They have access to negotiation documents. (FFII, 2009) The EU does not have an official way of informing companies, but it happens in an unofficial way. (CEO, 2011) The EU can not allow discrimination, which will also create a real risk that the negotiations will lead to a biased result. Human rights According to a leaked version of the Commission’s draft mandate, (IUST, 2013) the preamble of the agreement will refer to shared values in such areas as human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law. In our opinion, this is not a sufficient safeguard, as the preamble will not be binding. It is also unclear which values are shared. For instance, all EU member states have ratified the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, while the US did not ratify this covenant. (EP, 2013) Furthermore, regarding human rights, European courts give a wide margin of appreciation to the domestic authorities. The courts only step in and protect human rights in severe cases. If the EU trades away our rights, we are only partially protected. To protect our human rights, all measures in the agreement will have to be balanced themselves. All of them have to fully respect our rights enshrined in human rights instruments, including the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Intellectual property There is a deep divide in our societies over intellectual property rights. Exclusive rights on knowledge and culture harm access to knowledge and culture. This threatens health, food security and diffusion of green technology. Furthermore, before people had computers, it took an effort to infringe copyright; now, a mouse click is often enough. The internet made all of us infringers, this threatens our civil rights. It is essential to rethink copyright. In the software field, all developers may be infringers, as there are many trivial and over broad patents. It is also essential to rethink patent law. Trade agreements are not the right forum for this. The agreement has to exclude intellectual property rights, see the declaration signed by over 45 organisations: IP out of TAFTA. (PC, 2013) Investor to state dispute settlement An investor to state dispute settlement mechanism would create international arbitration tribunals above our high court and our human rights court. Multinationals will be able to sue the EU and its member states before such tribunals if changes in law threaten to make their profits lower. This would create a real risk to democracy, human rights, the public interest and our ability to solve financial crises. (Kelsey and Wallach, 2012; NGOs, 2013; Stiglitz, 2011) Both the EU and the US have strong protection for property, there is no need for international arbitration tribunals. The leaked version of the Commission’s draft mandate rightfully notes that the agreement should not harm the EU’s and member states’ right to adopt measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives. But the Commission does not draw the logical conclusion that arbitration tribunals should not be the forums to decide whether the EU’s policy objectives are legitimate. In fact, the Commission wants to grant these ad hoc tribunals the power to take such essential decisions regarding the competence of the EU, decisions which are in essence constitutional decisions. The Commission’s proposal would create, without a change of the Treaties, ad hoc parallel constitutional tribunals, without a possibility to appeal to the EU Court of Justice – the Union’s “constitutional” court. It would be a “coup d’état” against the Union, on behalf of multinationals. In our opinion, the Parliament has to step in and defend democracy and the Treaties by excluding investor to state dispute settlement from the agreement. Disagreement with the US over the interpretation of a ratified agreement can be solved by carefully designed state to state dispute settlement. Yours sincerely, Ante Wessels Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) References CEO (2011), http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/lawsuit_backgrou… ECOSOC (2009), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 21, Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/GC/21, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm EP (2013), Question for written answer http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/2013-March/000047.html FFII (2009) http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=FFII-O… IUST (2013), http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/EU_Draft_Mandate_-_In… Kelsey and Wallach, 2012, “Investor-State” Disputes in Trade Pacts Threaten Fundamental Principles of National Judicial Systems, http://tpplegal.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/isds-domestic-legal-process-bac… NGOs, 2013, European, Canadian and Quebec organizations, Transatlantic Statement Opposing Excessive Corporate Rights (Investor – State Dispute Settlement) in the EU – Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) http://tradejustice.ca/pdfs/Transatlantic%20Statement%20on%20Investor%20Rig… PC (2013), http://www.citizen.org/IP-out-of-TAFTA Stiglitz, 2011, Capital restrictions letter to US administration, http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/CapCtrlsLetter.pdf _______________________________________________ hub(a)icg.greens-efa.eu is a mailing list run by the Internet Core Group of the Greens/EFA (http://icg.greens-efa.eu). Policy for the list reads as follows: * the list is open but new subscribers must be approved by a list member * please feel free to forward and share mails from the list * messages from non-members are moderated and may be rejected * the list is indexed and archived at http://icg.greens-efa.eu/pipermail/hub/ List administrator is Jonatan Walck at hub-owner(a)icg.greens-efa.eu

1 0

ACTA documents in the European Parliament's register
by Andreas Jonsson 21 Apr '13

21 Apr '13

Dear Mr President Schulz, Further to the European Parliament's Public Access to documents Unit answer[1] to our request to make public the ACTA document that, according to a Commission spokesperson[2], made the Commission withdraw its referral, we would like to ask if the European Parliament has been informed about this document without it being registered with the European Parliament's register. Thank you very much in advance for helping us understand why the European Parliament's Public Access to documents Unit says it has not received the document we have asked for. Best regards, Andreas Jonsson DFRI - Föreningen för digitala fri- och rättigheter https://dfri.se/index.en [1] https://www.dfri.se/wiki/ep-acta-docs/EP-response-2013-04-15.txt [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCBTFh3IhQY

1 0

← Newer
1
...
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
...
80
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Listan